APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting a constitutional challenge to HB600. The trial court, however, dismissed the complaint because it found Plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed to allege an injury-in-fact, that their claims were not ripe for review, and that they were merely seeking an advisory opinion. Plaintiffs timely appealed to this court. However, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we remand the case to the trial court for resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion and Memorandum to Amend Complaint and for further proceedings, as necessary, consistent with this opinion
 

The appellant, Alan Robert Benjamin, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to two counts of robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I, standard offender to five years for each offense, with the sentences to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of fifteen years. The court ordered the appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days confinement for each offense, with the remainder of the sentence to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court, the imposition of consecutive sentencing, and the denial of full probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing the appellant to choose between two proposed sentencing options. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.

The defendant, Quanya Revell Prewitt, appeals her Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of possession with intent to sell or deliver dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III substance, in a school zone, claiming that the trial court erred by limiting the scope of cross-examination of two of the State’s witnesses and that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendants, Lashun Gray and Stanley Williams, were tried jointly before a Shelby County Criminal Court jury. Defendant Gray was convicted of attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202, 39-12-101, 39-17-1324 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of twenty-four years for the attempted first degree murder conviction and ten years for the firearm violation, for an effective thirty-four-year sentence. Defendant Williams was convicted of first degree murder, attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See id. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive terms of twenty-four years for the attempted first degree murder conviction and ten years for the firearm violation, for an effective sentence of life plus thirty-four years. On appeal, Defendant Gray contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder, (2) the trial court erred by allowing the medical examiner to testify about the effects of a gunshot wound on a living person, and (3) the court erred during sentencing. Defendant Williams contends that
(4) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for attempted first degree murder and the firearm violation, and (5) the court erred in instructing the jury regarding criminal responsibility. We affirm the Defendants’ convictions, but because of inappropriate sentences, we reverse the Defendants’ judgments for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and remand the case for entry of judgments reflecting six-year sentences.

Nigel Marlin Reid, Sr. filed a complaint in the trial court. The court, sua sponte, held that the complaint is “frivolous” and that plaintiff’s claims against his brother are barred by res judicata. The court dismissed the action. Because the complaint fails to state a cause of action, we affirm.

The issues in this divorce case focus, for the most part, on the enforceability and interpretation of a prenuptial agreement entered into by Sabra Elaine Ellis O’Daniel (“Wife”) and Rusty Wade O’Daniel (“Husband”). Shortly after their marriage, Wife was diagnosed with a serious illness that resulted in several extensive hospitalizations. We have determined that the enforcement of the provisions limiting and waiving alimony contained in the parties’ prenuptial agreement is likely to render Wife a public charge. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment holding that these “alimony” provisions are valid and enforceable. We affirm the trial court’s award to Wife of 67 months of health insurance, but do so on a ground other than the one articulated by the trial court. We affirm the trial court’s award to Wife of a judgment for $16,000 based upon Husband’s breach of the prenuptial agreement requiring him to fund a retirement account for Wife. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings (1) to consider anew Wife’s request for alimony and (2) to set her attorney’s fees on appeal.

The Defendant, Michael Allen Gibbs, was convicted by a Haywood County jury of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to give a jury instruction on accomplice testimony. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court should have instructed the jury with respect to the legal status of the State’s witness but that the error was harmless. However, because the Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary is precluded by statute, that conviction is modified to one for aggravated burglary with imposition of a five-year sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

This appeal involves a dispute over an attorney’s fee in a wrongful foreclosure case filed by Client against Bank of America. Client originally signed a contingency fee contract with Attorney, who later withdrew from the case. Client hired a new law firm to represent him and subsequently prevailed following a jury trial. Attorney filed suit, alleging that he was entitled to recover his original contingency fee because Client’s behavior forced him to withdraw from representation. The trial court limited Attorney’s recovery of fees pursuant to quantum meruit. Attorney appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Jessie Dotson, of six counts of premeditated first degree murder and three counts of attempted first degree murder. The jury sentenced the defendant to death for each conviction of first degree murder. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to forty years for each conviction for attempted first degree murder, to be served consecutively to each other and to the first degree murder sentences. On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) testimony regarding one of the victims’ statement to police was hearsay and its admission violated the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; (3) the admission of the defendant’s custodial statements violated his rights under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; (4) the admission of testimony that the defendant invoked his right to counsel violated his due process rights; (5) the admission of testimony regarding the defendant’s history of imprisonment violated his right to a fair trial; (6) the trial court’s treatment of defense counsel in the jury’s presence violated his right to a fair trial; (7) the admission of the pathologist’s testimony regarding autopsies that she did not perform violated the defendant’s confrontation rights; (8) the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victims; (9) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to provide DNA analysis of all those who came in contact with the crime scene; (10) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for production of the statements of those not to be called as witnesses for the State; (11) the trial court improperly defined “reasonable doubt” in instructing the jury; (12) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on facilitation of first degree murder as a lesser included offense; (13) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to strike aggravating circumstances; (14) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a probable cause finding regarding the aggravating circumstances; (15) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for disclosure of information regarding the proportionality review; (16) the admission of victim impact evidence was improper; (17) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to argue last during the penalty phase; (18) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its argument to the jury; (19) the trial court erred in allowing the death verdicts to stand; (20) the defendant’s sentences for his three convictions for attempted first degree murder were excessive; and (21) cumulative error requires reversal. Based upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Vershawn McCoy, was convicted by a Shelby County jury for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to a twenty-year sentence to be served at 100%. He unsuccessfully appealed to this Court. State v. Vershawn McCoy, No. W2009-01222-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 4540076 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 9, 2010). Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has been unable to prove either deficient performance on the part of trial counsel, or prejudice even if deficient performance had been found. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Colton D. Whitelow, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and reckless homicide and acquitted of the aggravated assault charge. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-211, -215. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective ten-year sentence. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the length of his sentences were excessive; and (2) that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Mother’s parental rights to her child were terminated due to her diminished mental capacity, which caused her to be incompetent to care for her child. Mother appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. The trial court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Petitioner, Auqeith Lashawn Byner, pled guilty to driving on a suspended license, and a Davidson County jury convicted him of possession with the intent to sell or deliver over twenty-six grams of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve an effective sentence of seventeen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner appealed his convictions but withdrew his appeal on February 11, 2010. On February 14, 2011, the Petitioner, pro se, timely filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and was thereafter appointed an attorney. After a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court issued an order denying the Petitioner relief. The Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his claim. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

In this medical malpractice action, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the defendant doctor. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in allowing a medical expert witness to testify. We find no error in the trial court’s decision.

The Petitioner, Kenneth Coleman Benefiel, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-529(a), (e)(1). On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was entered unknowingly and involuntarily. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this appeal, the mother of the child at issue appeals the trial court’s order establishing paternity. The appellant mother filed this parentage petition against the father. At the outset of the hearing on the petition, the mother’s attorney announced that he had developed a conflict of interest regarding his representation of the mother, because he had previously consulted with both the mother and the father when the parties agreed on the issues. By the time of the hearing, the parties no longer agreed and the father had hired his own attorney. Despite the attorney’s disclosure that he had developed a conflict of interest in continuing to represent the mother, the trial court proceeded with the paternity hearing. What ensued was a procedural train wreck; it ultimately resulted in orders that resolved all issues on their merits. The mother appeals. We conclude that this particular train never should have left the station. In light of the disclosure by the mother’s prior attorney that he had developed a conflict of interest, we vacate everything that followed the attorney’s disclosure, except the order allowing the mother’s attorney to withdraw.

Petitioner, George Campbell, Jr., was convicted by a jury in Memphis of felony murder and aggravated assault and sentenced to life in prison in 1994. See State v. George Campbell, Jr., No. 02-C-01-9408-CR00165, 1996 WL 368224, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 28, 1996), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Jan. 6, 1997). His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief and this Court affirmed the decision of the post-conviction court. See George Campbell, Jr. v. State, No. W2002-00703-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 1042112, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Sept. 10, 2001), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 27, 2001). Then Petitioner sought relief via the writ of habeas corpus on the basis that his convictions were void for various reasons. The trial court denied relief and this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief on appeal. See George Campbell, Jr. v. Bruce Westbrooks, No. W2002-02086-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL 22309471, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 6, 2003). Petitioner also sought redress in the form of a motion of writ of error coram nobis in which he claimed that newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment at trial had the evidence been admitted at the trial. See George Campbell, Jr. v. State, No. W2007-00820-CCA-R3-CO, 2008 WL 2219305, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 28, 2008). This Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for writ of error coram nobis on the basis that it was untimely and “nothing in the record implicate[d] any due process concerns that would require that the statute of limitations be tolled.” Id. at *2. Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of error coram nobis that is the subject of the appeal herein. After a hearing concerning the timeliness of the petition, the trial court entered an order finding that Petitioner’s claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations pertaining to coram nobis petitions and that due process did not require the rolling of the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the determination made by the trial court. The petition was filed more than one year after the judgment became final. Further, Petitioner has shown no reason that due process would require the tolling of the statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Petitioner asserts that disciplinary board acted arbitrarily and illegally in the conduct of the hearing and imposition of penalties. The trial court dismissed the petition; finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Lamour Ashleigh Sligh, was charged by information in the Blount County Circuit Court with possession with intent to deliver not less than one-half ounce of marijuana, a charge to which he pleaded guilty in 2007, agreeing to a suspended, two-year, Range I sentence. Following a series of probation revocations, the trial court revoked the probation in 2012 and ordered the defendant to serve the balance of his original sentence. We affirm the trial court’s order.

This appeal concerns alleged defamation and the applicability of both the legislative privilege and the litigation privilege. Bassam Issa (“Issa”), a developer seeking rezoning of certain real property, sued Chattanooga City Councilman Jack Benson, Sr. (“Benson”) in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). Issa alleged that, in two separate incidents, Benson had defamed him by accusing him of offering a bribe to influence Benson’s vote on the rezoning matter. Benson filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that his statements were protected by the legislative privilege and the litigation privilege. The Trial Court granted Benson’s motion. Issa appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

In this appeal, we review the denial of an attorney’s petition for reinstatement of his law license. The attorney was suspended from the practice of law for five years after he pleaded guilty to attempted extortion in federal court. The extortion arose out of the attorney’s attempt to broker the testimony of a witness in a civil trial for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and a five-year suspension from the practice of law, the attorney petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility denied the attorney’s request, finding that the attorney failed to carry his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he had the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law, and that reinstatement would not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice and subversive to the public interest. The panel considered, among other things, the nature of the crime, that the extortion involved several million dollars, the attorney’s unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions, and his lack of credibility. The attorney appealed to the Chancery Court for Williamson County. The trial court affirmed the hearing panel’s decision. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

In this appeal, we interpret the meaning of the phrase “term of imprisonment” in Articles III and IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-31-101 to -108 (2006), and determine whether the defendant is entitled to relief under the IAD. The IAD, a compact between state and federal jurisdictions, provides cooperative procedures for the exchange of prisoners between state and federal jurisdictions so that prisoners can be brought to trial on untried indictments or complaints. Under Article III of the IAD, a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment may request a trial within 180 days after being delivered to another state. Under Article IV of the IAD, an official of one jurisdiction may seek custody of a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment in another jurisdiction, but the prisoner must be tried within 120 days of arrival in that jurisdiction and cannot be “shuttled” back to the original place of imprisonment before the trial. The IAD mandates a dismissal of the indictment for a violation of either Article III or IV. The defendant in this case was arrested on related federal and state charges and taken into federal custody. After the defendant was tried and convicted in federal court, he was indicted by the grand jury in Gibson County on the related state charges. Before being sentenced in federal court, the defendant filed a demand for speedy disposition of the state charges under Article III of the IAD. While the defendant was confined at a federal temporary detention facility after his sentencing in federal court, the Gibson County Sheriff filed a detainer and transported the defendant to Gibson County for an arraignment. After counsel was appointed and the defendant was arraigned, he was transferred back into federal custody. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the state indictment for violations of Articles III and IV of the IAD. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 11 and reserved a certified question of law seeking appellate review of the denial of the motion to dismiss because of the alleged violation of the IAD. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in a divided opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. See State v. Springer, No. W2010-02153-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 603820, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 16, 2012). We hold that for purposes of the IAD, a prisoner who is incarcerated after sentencing is serving a “term of imprisonment.” We further hold that the defendant properly reserved his issues for appeal in the certified question; that the defendant was a federal pretrial detainee at the time he filed a procedurally deficient demand for speedy disposition and is not entitled to relief under Article III; and that the defendant was serving a term of imprisonment when he was transferred, pursuant to a detainer, from the federal temporary detention facility to Gibson County for his arraignment and back to federal custody on the same day. Article IV of the IAD was violated when the defendant was transferred back to the federal detention center before being tried for the state charges. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, the conviction is vacated, and the indictment against the defendant is dismissed with prejudice.

A Shelby County grand jury indicted appellant, Darquan Swift, for one count of attempted first degree murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of employing a firearm during commission of a dangerous felony in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1324. Following a trial, a jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder and guilty as charged on all remaining counts. The trial court sentenced appellant to an effective sentence of ninety-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He now appeals his convictions on the following grounds: (1) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1324 can be applied in a case involving robbery; (2) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1324 can be applied to lesser included offenses of the dangerous felony upon which the State relied; and (3) whether the trial court improperly limited the testimony of appellant’s expert witness. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a claim under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for injuries sustained by an employee of the Metropolitan Police Department that allegedly resulted from a fall in the break room at her workplace. The employee alleged that the chair she attempted to sit in, which had caster wheels, constituted a dangerous condition because it was on an uncarpeted, tile floor. She also alleged that the Metropolitan Government had notice of the dangerous condition and was negligent in failing to provide a safe work environment and in permitting the dangerous condition to remain. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed the action finding that Plaintiff failed to prove her negligence claim by a preponderance of the evidence because the evidence did not establish that the Metro Police Department had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition with sufficient time to take corrective action. We affirm.

This case presents the issue of whether the trial court properly dismissed the Appellees, Donald and Barbara MacTavish, as parties from the lawsuit below because Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Phillip Burt, Plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of all claims against Donald and Barbara MacTavish. We vacate the trial court’s order granting dismissal and remand for further proceedings.