APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a dispute between the deceased testator's second wife and the two children of his first marriage. The testator and his wife executed mutual and reciprocal wills which passed the bulk of their estate to the survivor. The spouses agreed, and their wills reflected, that when the survivor died, the estate was to go equally to the testator's children. In conjunction with the wills, the spouses executed an agreement that they would not change their wills even after the death of the other. After the testator's death, the wife began dissipating the estate, selling the family home, and giving her own child the testator's expensive grandfather clock. In an effort to preserve the estate, the testator's children commenced the underlying action, seeking to establish a resulting trust. After the trial court granted the wife's motion for summary judgment, the testator's children lodged this appeal. Because testator's will gave the wife his estate in fee simple, she inherited the real property as tenant by entirety, and there is no clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended her merely to hold the property in trust for his children, we must affirm.

The defendants, Johnny Owens and Sarah Owens, who are husband and wife, were convicted of aggravated child abuse by a Haywood County Circuit Court jury. Johnny Owens was convicted on one count only, and Sarah Owens was convicted on five counts. Because Johnny Owens' motion for a new trial raised only issues of the sufficiency of the evidence, we review only that issue in his appeal. Sarah Owens raises evidentiary issues and claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the "missing witness" rule, in conditioning the defendants' release from custody during trial upon Ms. Owens' withdrawal of her motion to sequester the jury, and in imposing an excessive sentence. We affirm all convictions and sentences; however, we order Sarah Owens' sentences to be served concurrently.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Eric Bernard Chism, of first-degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and aggravated sexual battery in connection with the abduction and homicide of Beatrice Sue Westbrooks. The defendant received an effective sentence of life plus 25 years. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) the trial court erroneously severed his case from that of his co-defendant; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (4) the trial court erroneously admitted unfairly prejudicial and inflammatory photographs; (5) the trial court improperly ruled that his prior narcotics conviction could be used for impeachment should he elect to testify; (6) a new trial should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence, but, at any rate, the hearing on the motion for new trial should have been continued until the results of additional forensic testing were available; and (7) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments and sentencing of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendants, Edward Coleman and Sean Williams, of premeditated murder, felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendants to life. The trial court merged the kidnapping convictions and sentenced Coleman and Williams to twenty-two years and eighteen years, respectively, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. In this appeal of right, both defendants raise the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion to sever; (3) whether the state failed to provide the defendants with timely discovery; and (4) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony that Williams shot a witness in this case on a prior occasion. In addition, Coleman raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding the loss of Coleman's leg, allegedly caused by the victim; and (2) whether the state knowingly presented perjured and conflicting testimony. Williams also raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victim's body; and (2) whether the state during closing argument violated the Bruton rule by referring to Coleman's incriminating statement regarding Williams. After reviewing the record, we affirm the convictions for premeditated first degree murder but reverse and dismiss the other charges based upon insufficiency of the evidence.

The defendant, Edward Jackson Thorpe, was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. He received sentences of twenty-two year's incarceration and two year's incarceration, respectively. In this appeal he maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law we must disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Carlos Haynes, pled guilty to possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, a Class E felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law concerns the validity of a search warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Vendors of rental equipment filed suit to collect unpaid invoices from the landowner after the contractor abandoned the job. The trial court granted recovery based upon the Mechanics’ and Materialmen’s Lien Statute and quantum meruit. We reverse for insufficient proof on the correct measure of damages. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded.
 

The Appellant, Jerry James Hayes, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Carroll County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, dismissal of the petition is affirmed.

Homeowners sued a builder for defective construction. The trial court awarded damages for breach and attorney's fees under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. We reverse the award of attorney's fees based upon no proof of deceptive, misleading or unfair conduct by the builder.

Samuel and Marguerite Watson appeal the final judgment of the trial court which found that a transaction between the Watsons and the Littles involving the purchase of a house created a resulting trust. The trial court divested out of the Watsons and vested in the Littles all interest in the house after the Littles obtained new financing for the house and paid off the previous mortgage in the Watsons' name and repaid the down payment with interest. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is an appeal from an order of summary judgment enforcing an option to purchase clause in a lease for commercial property. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding it had exercised its option under the contract. We reverse summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to the purchase price of the property.

Appellant, Wayne L. Holt, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of first degree felony murder, one count of premeditated first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, the trial court granted Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of first degree felony murder and to the count of especially aggravated robbery, but not as to the remaining count of premeditated first degree murder. Appellant was convicted by a jury of his peers of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and was sentenced, as a Range II multiple offender, to thirty (30) years imprisonment. In this appeal of right, Appellant raises five (5) issues for our review. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error in: 1) denying Appellant's pretrial motion to suppress his statement; 2) denying Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of premeditated first degree murder at the close of the State's case-in-chief; 3) overruling Appellant's objection to the State's closing argument; and 4) granting the State's request for a flight instruction. He further contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Takeita M. Locke, was tried and convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery in the death of Chuck Newman. The Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously affirmed both convictions. We granted this appeal to determine if the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses of felony murder, namely: second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Additionally, with respect to her conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (especially aggravated robbery), aggravated robbery, and robbery. After examining the facts and the law relevant to these issues, we hold that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide was reversible error. We also hold that the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and robbery was erroneous, but such errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated rape, both Class B felonies, and theft, which the trial court merged with the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for aggravated robbery and twenty years for attempted aggravated rape. The sentences were imposed consecutively. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of aggravated robbery because the victim's belief was unreasonable that the defendant was armed; the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of attempted aggravated rape because the victim learned that the defendant was, in fact, unarmed prior to the rape; and his sentence of thirty-five years is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.