APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Devon Wells, appeals his convictions of two counts of sale of a Schedule II controlled substan ce following a jury trial in the Lincoln County Circu it Court. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II Multiple Offender to two consecutive sentences of nine (9) and seven (7) years. He was also fined a total of $100,000 for the two convictions. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentence imposed was excessive and contrary to law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Donald Gene Brooks, stands convicted of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, theft of property valued over $1,000, and setting fire to personal property, all related to the robbery and killing of Joseph J. Wisniewski. He received his convictions following a jury trial in the Montgomery County Criminal Court. Brooks is incarcerated in the Department of Correction serving his effective sentence of life plus 27 years. In this direct appeal, Brooks challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the length of sentence imposed. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Anthony P. Geanes, appeals as of right from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of delivery of a Schedule II con trolled substance. He was sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years as a Range II Offender. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficien cy of the evidence and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgm ent of the trial court.

Judith Ann Taylor (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce against Michael Raymond Taylor (“Husband”) and also sought an injunction prohibiting Husband from dissipating marital assets. Husband filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce. The trial court granted Wife the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and awarded her rehabilitative alimony, partial attorney fees, and 60% of the marital assets. Husband appeals and raises the following issues:whether the trial court erred (1) in awarding Wife rehabilitative alimony of $1,300 per month for 60 months; (2) in ordering Husband to pay $20,000 as alimony in solido for Wife’s attorney fees; (3) in ordering Husband to pay a portion of Wife’s health insurance coverage; (4) in requiring Husband to maintain a life insurance policy which exceeds the total amount of child support owed; and (5) in dividing the marital property of the parties. Wife submits the additional issue of whether she is due attorney fees on appeal. For the reasons stated below, we find no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

This case comes to us on a certified question of law. The plaintiff, General Electric Company ("G.E."), filed this action for contribution against Process Control Company ("Process Control"). Process Control filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment arguing that Tennessee law does not permit a right of contribution in this case. The district court entered an order requesting this Court to address the following certified question of law: In actions that accrue after the decision in McIntyre v. Balentine, under what circumstances is a claim for contribution appropriate under Tennessee Law? We accepted certification of the question. We hold that under the facts as certified an action for contribution may be viable.