APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Travis Dewayne Gipson, appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw the guilty pleas he entered to two counts of the delivery of cocaine. Because the defendant failed to establish a manifest injustice requiring that he be allowed to withdraw his pleas, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant employee in this workers' compensation appeal worked for a municipal public utility as work crew leader. He filed suit against employer, alleging that he had sustained a gradual aggravation of pre-existing arthritis in his right knee, caused by the physical demands of his job. The employer denied the claim. The trial court found that the employee had not sustained his burden of proof that the aggravation was primarily caused by his work activities, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(12) (Supp. 2011). Judgment was entered in favor of the employer, and the employee appealed. The appeal was referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Lajuan Harbison, stands convicted by a Knox County jury of four counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which the trial court sentenced him to an effective term of twenty-two years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motion for a severance; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, including therein a double jeopardy challenge to his employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony convictions, and (3) that consecutive sentencing was improper. Following our review, we first conclude that a severance of defendants should have been granted and that the failure to do so constitutes reversible error. We also conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support one of the Defendant's convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter because the doctrine of transferred intent is inapplicable to such a conviction, and therefore, the corresponding count of employing a firearm during the commission of said dangerous felony likewise cannot stand. Additionally, multiple convictions for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony violate double jeopardy principles because the statute does not authorize separate firearms convictions for each felony committed in a single transaction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.

The defendant, James K. Hudgins, was convicted of one count of first degree (premeditated) murder. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of a phone call from jail; and that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce evidence that the defendant had previously accused someone of molesting his daughter. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Sedrick Clayton, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of three counts of first degree murder, attempt to commit first degree murder, possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, employing a firearm during the commission or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See T.C.A. §§ 39-12-101 (2014), 39-13-202(a)(1) (2014), 39-14-106, 39-17-1324(a) (2010) (amended 2012). The jury sentenced the Defendant to death for each first degree premeditated murder conviction. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifteen years for attempted first degree murder, three years for possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, six years for employing a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and attempted first degree murder; (2) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to the police; (3) double jeopardy principles prohibit his dual convictions for possessing a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony and employing a firearm during the commission or attempt to commit a dangerous felony; (4) the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victims during the penalty phase; (5) the trial court erred in admitting recordings of two 9-1-1 calls made from the victims' residence around the time of the murders; (6) Lieutenant Goods' testimony during redirect examination was improper in numerous respects; (7) Tennessee's death penalty scheme constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; (8) Tennessee's death penalty scheme is unconstitutional in numerous other respects; and (9) the Defendant's sentences of death are disproportionate. Although we affirm the Defendant's convictions and sentences for each first degree premeditated murder and attempted first degree murder, we conclude that the trial court should have merged the convictions for possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony with the employing a firearm during the commission or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. Therefore, we remand for the entry of corrected judgments. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The Petitioner, Jerome S. Barrett, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief wherein he challenged his conviction for second degree murder.  On appeal, he asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in the following ways: (1) for failing to call an alibi witness; (2) for failing to call a deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) expert; and (3) for failing to timely request independent DNA testing.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Michael D. Boone, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  The petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of a Schedule II drug (cocaine), a Class B felony, and possession with intent to sell or deliver between one-half ounce and ten pounds of a Schedule VI substance (marijuana), a Class E felony.  He is currently serving an effective twenty-four-year sentence for these convictions.  On appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel.  Specifically, he contends that trial counsel “battered [him] with tactics designed to scare or otherwise misinform” the petitioner, which resulted in his acceptance of the plea agreement.  Following review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The appellants, Morristown Heart Consultants, LLC and Sunil Ramaprasad, M.D. (“Plaintiffs”), appeal from an order of the Trial Court which granted the declaratory judgment portion of the counterclaim filed by the appellee, Pragnesh Patel, M.D. (“Defendant”), in the proceedings below. The order does not resolve the declaratory judgment claims raised by Plaintiffs in their initial petition, nor does the order resolve the remaining claims for damages raised by Defendant in his counterclaim. Because it is clear that the order appealed from does not resolve all issues raised in the proceedings below, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a termination of parental rights and adoption case. Appellant, the minor child’s paternal grandmother, appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition to terminate Appellee/Mother’s parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit and persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal from Appellee’s home. Specifically, the trial court held that Appellant had failed to meet her burden of proof to show, by clear and convincing evidence, either that Appellee’s failure to visit the child was willful, or that the conditions that precipitated the child’s removal persisted. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Defendant, Erin Lea Gentry, pled guilty to aggravated statutory rape and reserved a certified question for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) in which she asked this Court to determine whether the initial search warrant which led to the discovery of evidence supporting the indictment was overly broad; whether the affidavit supported a finding of probable cause to search specific items; and whether the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant.  After a review, we determine that the motion to suppress was properly denied, and thus we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Lance Elliott Falcon, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of rape, statutory rape by an authority figure, and sexual battery by an authority figure, arguing that the trial court improperly commented on the defendant's credibility in front of the jury, that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the sentence is excessive, and that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial entitles him to a new trial. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur with the majority’s opinion affirming the judgments of the trial court. I write separately to express my opinion that the question posed by the trial judge was essentially a comment on credibility and violated an unequivocal rule of law. “[J]udges in Tennessee are prohibited by our constitution from commenting upon the credibility of witnesses or upon the evidence in the case.” State v. Suttles, 767 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Tenn. 1989); see also Tenn. Const. Art. VI, § 9.

Mohnika M. King (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000 and one count of forgery.  During the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request that she be placed on judicial diversion.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied judicial diversion.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The State appeals from the trial court's dismissal of a three-count indictment based on the trial court's finding that there was an excessive delay in prosecuting the defendant, Charles Beaty. The State contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment on finding a violation of the defendant's right to a speedy trial and due process. We conclude that the trial court correctly dismissed any offenses which were merely the reindictment of a previously dismissed case. However, the trial court erred in dismissing any new charges, because the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated and the defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the delay as required for due process relief. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The defendant, Javonte Thomas, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his statement to police. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother's parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of her rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to visit; substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan; and the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court further found that termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm.

After the death of the original plaintiff while this case was pending, a timely motion for substitution was filed to substitute the original plaintiff's parents as the real party in interest pursuant to Rule 25.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion indicated that the original plaintiff's parents were her only heirs and that no estate was to be opened for the original plaintiff in her home state of Missouri. The defendant filed an objection to the substitution asserting that the original plaintiff's heirs were not the proper parties, but the trial court eventually allowed parents to be substituted as plaintiffs. After the parties became aware that an estate had been opened for the original plaintiff in Missouri, defendant filed a motion to dismiss based upon non-compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-5-104, which requires a showing that no person is willing to administer the estate of a deceased party before his or her heirs may revive a claim. Parents filed a response in opposition and, in the alternative, a motion for enlargement of time to file a motion to substitute the original plaintiff's personal representative. The trial court denied the motion for enlargement of time and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Because parents have shown excusable neglect sufficient to justify an enlargement of time under Rule 6.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant, Tanyawa Sallie, was indicted for the offense of cutodial interference, but a Lake County Circuit Court jury convicted her of custodial interference with voluntary return of the child, a Class A misdemeanor. She was sentenced by the trial court to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with ten days to serve and the remainder of the time on supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of her conviction and argues that the trial court erred in sentencing by considering her 2004 felony conviction in an unrelated matter and by imposing an excessive sentence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An Obion County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Lynn Clark, of one count of vehicular homicide by intoxication and four counts of vehicular assault with intoxication. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences for an effective sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, claiming: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court invaded the province of the jury by commenting on the evidence in response to a juror question; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Ramon Curry, of one count of false imprisonment, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court ordered an effective sentence of thirty years to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) he was entitled to a mistrial because a State's witness assisted the prosecutor by carrying a box of evidence; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by ordering partial consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The parties to this appeal are a former Husband and Wife who each challenge the classification and division of certain assets upon their divorce. Additionally, Husband challenges the finding that $2,000 owed to the parties’ son is a separate rather than a marital debt, and Wife challenges the failure to award her one-half of funds Husband withdrew from marital accounts during the pendency of the divorce. We modify the judgment to reflect that the $2,000 payment is a marital debt and affirm the order that Husband be responsible for it; in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Tabitha Gentry, aka Abka Re Bay, of theft of property valued over $250,000 and aggravated burglary. The trial court ordered an effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to a prior sentence from another Shelby County conviction. The Defendant appeals contending that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions, (2) the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a State witness about adverse possession; (3) the trial court improperly limited the Defendant's closing argument; and (4) consecutive sentencing was inappropriate in this case. After review, we remand the case for resentencing and affirm the trial court's judgments in all other respects.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Lee Sowers, pleaded guilty in the Greene County Criminal Court pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to official misconduct, a Class E felony, with the length and the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. See T.C.A. § 39-16-402 (2014). The court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eighteen months’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, George Mark Alan Greene, pled guilty to one count of incest, a Class C felony, and the trial court denied his application for judicial diversion. On appeal, he contends that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed because he is a suitable candidate for judicial diversion. We conclude that although the trial court did not properly consider all of the factors in denying judicial diversion, a de novo review of the record supports the denial of diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, John Jack Lynch, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief in which he argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  After a thorough review, we determine Petitioner has failed to show clear and convincing evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.