APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Jeffery L. Vaughn appeals from the Dyer County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. He contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial because jurors allegedly overheard a bench conference  egarding his prior criminal record. He also contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial due to his counsels’ failure to inform him of the correct sentencing range, to have the cocaine independently weighed, to present the testimony of his drug counselor, and to move for an acquittal at the end of the proof. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

This appeal involves a custody dispute over twin daughters born after their parents separated following a brief marriage. The father filed for divorce in the Putnam County General Sessions Court shortly after learning that the mother was pregnant, and the mother counterclaimed for divorce and for sole custody of the unborn children. Following a bench trial, the general sessions court granted the father a divorce based on the mother’s inappropriate marital conduct, awarded the father sole custody of the children, and directed the mother to pay child support. On this appeal, the mother asserts that the general sessions court’s decision interferes with her constitutional right to make primary care-taking decisions for her children, that she is comparatively more fit than the father to be the custodial parent, and that the general sessions court should have awarded joint custody. We have determined that the custody arrangement does not impermissibly interfere with the mother’s parental rights and that the evidence fully supports the general sessions court’s custody decision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment awarding sole custody to the children’s father. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the General Sessions Court Affirmed and Remanded
 

This appeal involves a dispute over a sizeable estate. After learning that they had been excluded from their relative’s will, thirteen of the testatrix’s heirs challenged the will in the Chancery Court for Sumner County on the grounds of improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, and undue influence. The proponents of the will asserted that the contestants lacked standing because their challenge, even if successful, would only revive an earlier will from which they had likewise been excluded. The trial court found that the contestants had standing but, following a bench trial, determined that the contestants had failed to prove their improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, or undue influence claims. On this appeal, the contestants take issue with the decision to uphold the will; while the proponents take issue with the conclusion that the contestants had standing to challenge the will. We have determined that the contestants had standing to challenge the will and that the trial court properly determined that the will should be admitted to probate in solemn form. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded.
 

A Davidson County jury convicted the appellant, Jeremy M. Batey, of one count of reckless homicide, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I offender to three years incarceration in the local workhouse. On appeal the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence solely on the basis that the crime involved a death. We hold that where the legislature has provided for alternative sentencing in certain homicide offenses, the denial of an alternative sentence solely on the basis of the victim’s death is erroneous. However, in the instant case the circumstances of the offense, including illegal drug and alcohol use which contributed to the offense, and the appellant’s history of alcohol and drug abuse, including the use of marijuana 2 ½ years after the offense and approximately four months prior to his trial justify the denial of alternative sentencing.

This is an appeal from the Chancery Court for McMinn County which, pursuant to Tennessee Rule
of Civil Procedure 60.02(5), modified a judgment that was previously entered in accord with a
settlement agreement between the parties. The appellants appealed and contended that the trial court improperly modified the judgment and reduced the benefits they were to receive according to the agreement. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the appellants filed a motion for full review by this Court to determine whether a party can seek modification of a workers’ compensation judgment for a fixed sum to be paid periodically almost two years after entry of judgment. We hold that where a party agrees to settle a workers’ compensation claim, and the trial court approves the settlement, the settling party is generally not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60.02(5). Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals panel and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

We granted the appeal in this case to decide (1) whether fists and feet are deadly weapons
under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(5)(B); and (2) whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on criminal responsibility for facilitation of especially aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery was reversible error. We conclude that fists and feet are not deadly weapons under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(5)(B). In addition, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on facilitation of aggravated robbery and especially aggravated robbery. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Permission to Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed
 

I concur with the results reached by the majority in this case. With respect to the issue of counseling, I agree with the majority that the statute has become inapplicable in the present case due to the child having reached majority. I write separately because of my concern that the majority
opinion might be interpreted as limiting a trial court’s discretion to order counseling to that specifically set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-101(e)(1), the text of which is set forth in the majority opinion. I interpret the statute to be permissive rather than prohibitive. For example, I can envision a trial court ordering a non-custodial parent to undergo counseling for anger management as a condition of exercising visitation rights. I do not believe the aforementioned statute prohibits this.

The appellant owned an undivided one-third interest in a residence prior to his marriage to the appellee. They occupied the residence for about two years, during which time the evidence reveals that the appellee engaged herself in constant repairs, thereby increasing the liveability and value of the residence. She was awarded 75% of the increase in the value of this residence during the marriage, of which the appellant complains.