APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In a non-jury trial, the Circuit Court of Davidson County awarded $10,920 to a plaintiff injured in a rear-end collision. The defendants assert on appeal that the court erred in allowing the plaintiff to supplement her trial proof with her doctor's statement that his charges were reasonable and necessary. In addition, the defendants assert that most of the medical expenses included in the plaintiff's award were not caused by the accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James Henderson Dellinger and Gary Wayne Sutton were convicted of first degree premeditated murder in the death of Tommy Mayford Griffin. Dellinger and Sutton were both sentenced to death, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed their convictions and sentences. We entered an order designating the following issues for oral argument:1 1) whether the indictments violate the United States Constitution as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); 2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the defendants a severance or to grant separate juries for each defendant; 3) whether the trial court erred in dismissing the jury selection expert previously granted the defendants; 4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized from Dellinger’s residence under a search warrant; 5) whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(2); 6) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury at sentencing that the identity of the defendants in prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; 7) whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury as a mitigating factor that the defendants are human beings; 8) whether the trial court erred in refusing to answer the jury’s question about the manner of serving life sentences; and 9) whether the sentences of death are excessive or disproportionate under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). Having carefully reviewed these issues and the remainder of the issues raised by Dellinger and Sutton, we find no merit to their arguments.2 Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals in all respects.

The defendant, who had three convictions for DUI, was incarcerated after the suspended portion of his most recent DUI sentence had been revoked because of a fourth arrest for DUI and his failure to report the new arrest to his probation officer. The following month, the defendant was released on a four-day furlough to attend his grandmother's funeral in Louisiana, and, apparently because of the late hour when the release occurred, the conditions of his release were not explained. Two hours later, the defendant was seen by a jail deputy at a nearby Hooter's Restaurant, as he drank a beer with his brothers, whom he had met there for the journey to Louisiana. Following a hearing, he was held in contempt of court for consuming an alcoholic beverage while on furlough and sentenced to ten days confinement to be served consecutively to the sentence for which he then was incarcerated. He timely appealed that ruling, arguing that since the conditions of the furlough had not been explained to him, the evidence was insufficient for the finding that he was in contempt of court. Upon our review, we affirm the trial court.

This case addresses the applicable standard to modify a child-custody  order awarding custody to a non-parent. In 1993, the child’s natural father agreed to give custody to the child’s maternal grandmother, and a consent order was entered accordingly. The father later petitioned to modify that order, asserting that a material change in circumstances had occurred and claiming that he had a superior parental right to the custody of his daughter. The trial court denied the petition, finding that no material change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification, and a majority of  the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted the father’s application for permission to appeal and hold that a natural parent cannot generally invoke the doctrine of superior parental rights to modify a valid order of  custody, even when that order resulted from the parent’s voluntary consent  to give custody to the non-parent. Instead, a natural parent seeking to  modify a custody order that grants custody to a non-parent must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred, which makes a change in custody in the child’s best interests. We also affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals finding that the father has not shown a material change in circumstances that makes a change of custody in his daughter’s best  interests.

The defendant, Ben Mills, was convicted of one count of first degree premeditated murder, one count of felony murder, one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of attempted first degree murder. The trial court merged the murder convictions and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. For the remaining convictions, the trial court imposed sentences as follows: eight years as a standard, Range I offender for aggravated robbery to be served concurrently with the life sentence, and 15 years as a standard, Range I offender for each attempted first degree murder conviction to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the sentences for first degree murder and aggravated robbery. The effective sentence, therefore, is life plus 15 years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding all of the lesser included offenses of felony murder; and (3) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on intoxication. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. The judgment for first degree murder is modified to reflect that the conviction for felony murder is merged into the conviction for premeditated first degree murder.

Ralph Dewayne Moore was indicted and tried on one count of disorderly conduct and two counts of aggravated assault. The jury was instructed that misdemeanor assault and felony reckless endangerment were lesser-included offenses of aggravated assault. Moore was subsequently convicted of disorderly conduct, one count of misdemeanor assault, and one count of felony reckless endangerment. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. On appeal to this Court, Moore contends that: (1) felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault; and (2) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the conviction for felony reckless endangerment. We conclude that the offense of felony reckless endangerment is not included within the offense of aggravated assault committed by intentionally or knowingly causing another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury by use or display of a deadly weapon; thus, we hold that the jury was improperly instructed. As a result of our holding, we find it unnecessary to address Moore's second contention. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court.

A Lauderdale County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for robbery, and following a trial, a Lauderdale County jury convicted the defendant of the offense charged. In this direct appeal, the defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction; (2) whether evidence introduced at trial was illegally obtained in contravention of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; (3) whether the defendant was deprived of an "independent analysis of the evidence"; and (4) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury. Finding no error in the record, we affirm the defendant's conviction.

We granted review to determine whether a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution occurs when a police officer activates the blue lights on his patrol car and orders a person to stop, but the person flees and does not submit to authority. The trial court suppressed evidence obtained from the defendant after determining that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that the defendant had committed a crime before seizing the defendant by activating his blue lights and ordering him to stop. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that there was no seizure because the defendant fled and did not yield to the officer’s show of authority and reversed the judgment.

After a thorough review of the record and the relevant authority, we hold that under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was seized when the officer activated the blue lights on his patrol car, ordered the defendant to stop, and pursued him for several blocks. Because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to effect such a seizure, the evidence seized from the defendant was properly suppressed by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

I fully agree with the majority’s conclusion that a natural parent cannot generally invoke the doctrine of superior parental rights to modify a valid order of custody, even when that order resulted from the natural parent’s voluntary relinquishment of custody to the non-parent. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that, in such circumstances, a natural parent seeking to modify custody must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred, which makes a change in custody in the child’s best interests. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Blair has failed to show a material change of circumstances in this case. The factors in the record supporting this conclusion are succinctly summarized in Justice Birch’s dissenting opinion as follows: When Blair originally agreed to surrender custody of Joy to Badenhope, his relationship with his daughter was uncertain and had only begun. Indeed, he apparently did not even see Joy until after her mother’s death. But in the many years that have passed since that time, Blair has expended great effort to create a strong, loving bond with his daughter. That bond has flourished to such a degree that Joy now has expressed an interest in living with Blair. Additionally, Blair has moved to Tennessee to be nearer to Joy, [footnote omitted] and he has purchased a new home in a neighborhood where Joy has many friends. Blair’s relationship with his daughter, his daughter’s interest in living with him, and even his place of residence have changed entirely.

This is an automobile collision personal injury case. Plaintiff-motorist was stopped in a thru-traffic lane over the crest of a hill behind a vehicle attempting to make a left turn off of the highway. The defendant-motorist came over the crest of the hill and struck the plaintiff-motorist in the rear, causing injuries to the plaintiff. Judgment was entered on a jury verdict for the defendant that the defendant was not at fault in the accident. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

With today’s holding, the majority declares, essentially, that a parent who voluntarily surrenders custody of a child forfeits any right to custody and  from that day forward is shorn of parental status and relegated to a status no better than that of a non-parent, should the parent petition to modify the custody decree. I cannot agree. In my view, this decision condescendingly brushes aside the fundamental and constitutionally-grounded principle  that a parent has a right to raise a child without undue governmental  interference. Likewise, the holding disregards the presumption, widely recognized in law, that a child’s best interests are served most effectively,  where possible, by placement with a fit parent. The majority’s holding places far too little weight on the parent’s fitness to care for the child or the parent’s efforts, no matter how extensive or admirable, to foster and nurture a loving bond with the child. Moreover, my views aside, the majority misapplies its own analysis to reach a result I find to be unsupportable and unjust. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

The petitioner, Yasmond Fenderson, filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his Knox County convictions of second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. The post-conviction court conducted an evidentiary hearing but denied post-conviction relief. The petitioner appeals and claims the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding that the record supports the post-conviction court's denial of relief, we affirm.

In this post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner alleges that his pre-trial counsel failed to accompany him while he gave statements to the police and that trial counsel failed to offer the testimony of an expert pathologist. These failures, the petitioner asserts, deprived him of the constitutionally-grounded right to the effective assistance of counsel. Our review is guided by the United States Supreme Court's holding in Strickland v. Washington, which requires petitioners alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to prove that counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient representation. 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). We readily conclude that pre-trial counsel's representation fell below reasonable standards. Because we hold, however, that the petitioner has failed to prove he was prejudiced by the deficient pre-trial representation, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. As far as trial counsel's failure to offer the testimony of an expert pathologist is concerned, we hold that the petitioner failed to sufficiently articulate this claim in his post-conviction petition. Thus, the trial court properly refused to hear evidence concerning that claim. It results that the denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed.

Convicted by a jury of third-offense driving while under the influence (DUI), the defendant, Jacquie Upchurch Giardina, challenges on appeal the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and her sentence of eleven months and 29 days to be served in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm the conviction and the sentence.

I concur with the majority’s opinion affirming the convictions as to both defendants. With regard to the imposition of the death sentences in this case, however, I cannot agree. My concerns, as expressed below, pertain to: (1) the comparative proportionality review protocol imposed by the majority; and (2) the trial court’s refusal, during the sentencing phase, to address a jury question related to the amount of time the defendants would serve under a life sentence.

The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Gregory Scott Payne, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of sexual battery, one count of attempted rape, and two counts of rape. Following a trial, the jury found defendant guilty of one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, as a lesser-included offense of one of the rape charges, and not guilty of the remaining offenses. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant as a standard Range I offender to two years in confinement. In this appeal, defendant asserts that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike the victim's testimony or declare a mistrial (based on the failure of the police to produce the taped recording of the victim's statement). Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence length and by denying him probation or any other form of alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.