APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, James Richard Watson, appeals from his sentence imposed for aggravated assault, a Class C felony, in the McMinn County Criminal Court. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(B) (1997). The trial court imposed a five year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the defendant challenges the length of the sentence imposed and the manner of service. After a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the sentence.

The appellant, David E. Smith, Jr., appeals the verdict of a Davidson County jury finding him guilty of one count of theft of property over $1,000, a class D felony. For this offense, the appellant received a two year suspended sentence. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion.

The appellant, Anand Franklin, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of one (1) count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to eight (8) years incarceration. On appeal, the appellant claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After a thorough review of the
record before this Court, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
 

The appellant, Louis Lavergne, pled guilty to the offense of voluntary manslaughter in the Davidson County Criminal Court.1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, both the length of the sentence and the manner of service were submitted to the trial court for determination. The trial court subsequently imposed a four year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant challenges both the length of the sentence and the trial court’s denial of a sentencing alternative to total confinement.  After a review of the record, the appellant’s four year sentence is affirmed, however, the manner of service is modified to reflect a split confinement sentence of six months confinement in the local jail or workhouse with the remainder of the four year sentence to be served on supervised probation.

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the state to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order rather than formal opinion. See Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is currently serving a life sentence, having been found to be an habitual criminal in 1985. In his present petition, the petitioner claims that his conviction is void because his trial attorney worked as a Public Defender and Assistant District Attorney at the same time.
The trial court found that the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief and dismissed the petition.

Plaintiff Jerry Nelms, as next of kin and executor of the estate of his deceased wife,
Inez Nelms, appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding him the sum of $25,000 in compensatory damages but denying his request for punitive damages. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that the court properly directed a verdict in favor of Defendant/Appellee Walgreen Company on the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

The plaintiff, a resident of Hawaii, contracted to buy D & K  Auto Salvage from the defendants in August 1994, for $450, 000.00.  He employed Tom Gargone to manage the business.

Defendant, Terry Wayne Haymon, appeals as of right his convictions by a Dyer County jury on three counts of aggravated robbery. Honorable J. Steven Stafford sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of thirty years as a career offender. The following issues are presented for our review:

1. whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions;
2. whether the defendant was improperly denied his right to a preliminary hearing; and
3. whether the defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender.

After a careful review of the record, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

A Hardeman County jury convicted defendant of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property valued at $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The sole issue in this appeal as of right is sufficiency of the evidence. We find the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Michael D. Hawkins, appeals as of right from the trial court’s revocation of his suspended sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the appellant had violated conditions of his probation and ordered execution of the entire sentence as originally entered. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted intensive probation or an alternative sentence, specifically Community Corrections.

Because the opinion filed by the Court of Criminal Appeals states the view I take, I respectfully dissent from the view held by the majority of my colleagues and would adopt the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

We granted this Tenn. R. App. P. 11 appeal to determine the appropriate standard of review of a trial court’s decision to admit a breath-alcohol test result under State v. Sensing, 843
S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting the test result of the defendant, Jerry Wayne Edison.1 We affirm the judgment of the intermediate appellate court and conclude that a trial court’s Sensing decision must be presumed correct on appeal unless the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary.

This case is before us for automatic review of the Court of Criminal Appeals’
affirmance of a death sentence imposed upon Donald Ray Middlebrooks in a
Davidson County resentencing hearing for first degree murder.

We granted this appeal by the State of Tennessee to address the issue of jury unanimity in cases where the State relies on alternative theories of guilt to convict an accused under a single count indictment. In this case, the appellee, James Lemacks, was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the appellee of DUI based upon evidence that he operated his automobile while intoxicated or that he was criminally responsible for allowing his friend, Clinton Sanchez, to drive the automobile while intoxicated. The jury returned a general verdict convicting the appellee of DUI.

This appeal is brought from the Claims Commission’s order dismissing the 2 appellant’s petition. Petitioner, a Tennessee Department of Correction inmate, was attacked by another inmate and sustained injuries as a result. Petitioner alleged in his complaint that the State of Tennessee was negligent in not providing adequate security. For the following reasons we affirm the Claims Commission’s order granting the State’s motion for summary judgment

This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiffs and the defendant orally agreed to each submit applications to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to obtain a license to construct and maintain cellular phone operations. The parties agreed to share the profits if any one of them was awarded a license. The defendant was awarded a license, and the plaintiffs sued to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant finding the contract was illegal under FCC rules and therefore unenforceable. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Defendant Diane Jones (“Jones” or “Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court awarding Plaintiff Carolyn Whitemore (“Whitemore” or “Appellee”) the sum of $1,250.00 as reimbursement for money given to Jones by Whitemore for investment in an illegal “pyramid scheme.”

This is a divorce case. In dividing marital property, the trial court awarded the wife 50.5% of the marital property and awarded the husband 49.5%. The trial court did not award the wife alimony or attorney’s fees. The wife now appeals the division of marital property, and the failure to award alimony and attorneys’ fees. We affirm.

This case involves an appeal from the SumnerCounty Circuit Court’s de novo review of a case from General Sessions Court, in which only one of the General Sessions Defendants perfected an appeal to circuit court.

Appellant David A. Humphrey commenced this pro se appeal to challenge the trial court's Final Decree granting a divorce to Appellee Cheryl Lynn (Douglas) Humphrey on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. He asserts that the divorce should have been granted to him or the court should have simply declared the parties divorced. He also challenges the trial court’s child custody and visitation order, asking that in person visitation be required. Finally, he objects to the assessment of costs against him.