APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Danny Ray Hensley, pleaded guilty to robbery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-401 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years’ confinement. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. Because the trial court did not consider a presentence report, we reverse its judgment and remand for resentencing.

A Bedford County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Joseph Darryl Taylor, of two counts of rape, see T.C.A. § 39-13-503(a)(1), (2); one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, see id. § 37-1-156; and one count of simple possession of marijuana, see id. § 39-17-418(a). At sentencing, the trial court merged the rape convictions into a single judgment of conviction and imposed an effective sentence of 20 years plus 11 months and 29 days’ incarceration for the offenses. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, the trial court’s allowing his impeachment by prior convictions of aggravated assault and statutory rape, and the trial court’s sentencing determination. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, who stood convicted following a guilty plea to numerous crimes including aggravated kidnapping, brought a petition for habeas corpus claiming that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter a pretrial order amending one count of his indictment from a charge of especially aggravated kidnapping to a charge of aggravated kidnapping. Consequently, he urged that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping was void. The habeas corpus court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioner’s claims, if sustained, would merely render his judgment voidable, not void. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court violated his due process right to fair and impartial review by failing to accurately grasp the merits of his claims and including nongermane material in its order. After review, we conclude that the habeas corpus court’s order did fairly address his claims and did not violate his due process rights. Consequently, the judgment below is affirmed.

A Campbell County jury convicted the Defendant- Appellant, Billy J. Blankenship, of robbery, a Class C felony, and theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. He received a sentence of four years for robbery and three years for theft, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Blankenship argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to prove the particular allegations of the indictments. Upon review, we reverse and vacate the judgment for robbery, and remand for a new trial as to the robbery offense. The judgment for theft, however, is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Jerry D. Carney, II, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contended that his life sentence for his first degree premeditated murder conviction was illegal and void. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the summary dismissal of the petition. His primary claim is that his life sentence is illegal because the statute governing his release eligibility does not allow for the possibility of parole. Following our review, we affirm.

Appellant, Deonte Matthews, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of especially aggravated robbery and the trial court sentenced Appellant to seventeen years at 100%. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant initiated this appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the proof supports the conviction for especially aggravated robbery.

This is an action for breach of warranty of title. The court found, after a bench trial, that the defendants breached the warranty by conveying an easement which they did not own. The defendants appeal. We affirm.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Ronnie Ingram, of aggravated burglary, see T.C.A. § 39-14-403; theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000, see id. § 39-14-103, 105(2); criminal exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), see id. § 39-13-109; evading arrest, see id. § 39-16-603; and resisting arrest, see id. § 39-16-602. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 32 years plus 11 months and 29 days’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of criminal exposure to HIV. Because we determine that the State failed to establish an element of the offense, we reverse the defendant’s conviction of criminal exposure to HIV and dismiss that charge. In lieu thereof, we impose a conviction of attempt to expose one to HIV and remand for sentencing on this modified conviction. Because the defendant raises no challenge to his remaining convictions, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects.

In this case, Sherry Hutson filed a complaint in which she alleged her vehicle was struck by a tractor-trailer (“the tractor”) that left the scene of the accident. She seeks to recover under the uninsured motorist (“UM”) provisions of a policy providing coverage to the vehicle she was driving. The jury found that no “actual physical contact ha[d] occurred between” the plaintiff’s vehicle and the vehicle that left the scene. She appeals. We affirm.

A Sullivan County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, David L. Brummitt, of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and reckless aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-four, six, and four years, respectively. The trial court ordered that the appellant serve the six- and four-year sentences concurrently on probation but consecutively to the sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. On direct appeal, this court modified the appellant’s especially aggravated robbery conviction to aggravated robbery and remanded the case for sentencing as to that offense. State v. David L. Brummitt, No. E2009-01358-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 875, at *2 (Knoxville, Oct. 14, 2011), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2011). On remand, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twelve years for the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court also ordered that the appellant serve the six- and four-year sentences in confinement, consecutively to each other, and consecutively to the twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that his twelve-year sentence for the aggravated robbery conviction is excessive and that the trial court’s resentencing him for the aggravated burglary and reckless aggravated assault convictions exceeded the scope of this court’s direct appeal opinion. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the appellant for the aggravated robbery conviction but that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence the appellant for the remaining convictions. Therefore, the appellant’s original sentences for aggravated burglary and reckless aggravated assault remain in effect.

After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of the first degree (premeditated) murder of her spouse and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant raises numerous challenges to her conviction, claiming that: (1) the evidence used to convict her was insufficient, (2) the trial court erred by failing to suppress certain evidence found by the police during a warrantless search of the residence that she formerly shared with the victim, (3) the trial court erred by admitting certain expert testimony, (4) the trial court erred by failing to suppress certain statements she made to police,(5) the trial court erred by admitting evidence relating to a prior domestic disturbance between the defendant and the victim, and (6) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the efforts of Oak Ridge’s Board of Building and Housing Code Appeals to demolish buildings in Applewood Apartment Complex pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-21-101, Tennessee’s Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Statute. Owner filed a petition for writ of certiorari when the Board voted to demolish the buildings. The trial court granted the petition but granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment. Owner appeals. We reverse the grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether the Board acted without material evidence but affirm the grant of summary judgment on all other issues. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

William Franklin Robinette (“the Defendant”) appeals his jury convictions for theft of property of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 and theft of property of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. He was sentenced as a multiple offender to an effective sentence of ten years and was fined $10,000. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the length of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences.

The plaintiffs in this case allege that they are adversely affected by a statute that legalizes the sale of fireworks inside the city limits of East Ridge, despite a general ban on the sale of fireworks in any county with a population of greater than 200,000, e.g., Hamilton County. They allege that the statute is unconstitutional. There are two distinct groups of plaintiffs (both groups being collectively referred to as “the Plaintiffs”). One group alleges that they are residents of the city and own property or businesses in the city (“the Citizens” or “the Citizen Plaintiffs”). The Citizen Plaintiffs allege that the sale of fireworks will result in diminished property values and an increased risk of fire or explosion with attendant increases in fire insurance premiums. The second group alleges that they are either in the business of selling fireworks, or are members of a purported “association” of persons or entities in the business of selling fireworks (“the Sellers”). They allege that they have put forth much effort and expense to establish businesses outside East Ridge, where fireworks sales are legal, only to see their efforts thwarted by the enactment of an unconstitutional statute permitting illegal competition. The Plaintiffs moved the trial court to enter judgment on the pleadings by decreeing the statute to be unconstitutional on its face. Instead, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, but did so without prejudice. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

The plaintiff in this action is Bradley County (“the County”). The sole defendant is the City of Cleveland (“the City”). The County’s complaint seeks a determination that the proceeds of a 2009 local option county sales tax increase, enacted shortly after an identical increase by the City, is to be distributed between the parties according to a contract (“the Contract”) the parties signed in 1967 as opposed to a statutory provision for distribution based on the site of collection of the tax. The City filed a counterclaim which, as amended, seeks a determination that the Contract is void; that the Contract does not control distribution of the proceeds of a 1982 tax increase; that the Contract does not control distribution of the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase; and that, by statute, the City is entitled to all of the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase on sales made inside the city limits through the City’s 2010 fiscal year. The trial court upheld the validity of the Contract and further held that the Contract, as amended twice, i.e., in 1972 and in 1980, controls distribution between the parties of the proceeds of the County’s 1982 tax increase. The court held that the applicable statute, rather than the Contract, controls distribution of the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase; this latter holding is not at issue in this appeal. The court further held that the City’s statutory right to the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase on sales in the City ended June 30, 2009, which equates with the City’s 2009 fiscal year. The City appeals. We affirm that part of the judgment upholding the validity of the Contract and that part applying the Contract to the distribution of the 1982 tax increase. We reverse that part of the judgment that held the City’s statutory right to proceeds from the 2009 tax increase ended June 30, 2009. We hold that the City is entitled to the 2009 tax increase on sales in the city through the City’s 2010 fiscal year.

The defendant pled guilty to one count of simple possession of marijuana, reserving a certified question of law concerning the legality of her detention and warrantless search by police. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the defendant has failed to clearly outline the scope and limits of the question presented at the trial court level and thus has failed to properly preserve her certified question. We dismiss the appeal accordingly.

Romilla Jones (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to two years, suspended to community corrections after service of six months in the county jail. The Defendant appealed, arguing that she should not have been sentenced to any period of confinement. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we have determined that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because the judgment order contains a clerical error, this matter is remanded for the entry of a corrected judgment order.

Barry Singleton (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape. In his petition, he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his counsel at trial failed to convey a plea offer to him that he would have accepted instead of proceeding to trial. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Mulugeta Abebe , Eshetu Yalemwossen, and Girma Ejegu (“Plaintiffs”) sued Solomon Haile Birhane and Frehiwot Tesfagzi (“Defendants”) seeking, in part, a declaration of the parties’ rights with regard to a Raceway Service Station (“the Raceway Store”) located in Hermitage, Tennessee. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Order on October 18, 2010 finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiffs and Defendants are partners in the Raceway Store with each one of the five partners holding a 20% interest in the partnership, and that the parties had an agreement that once overhead was met the Raceway Store would repay Plaintiffs their capital contribution. Defendants appeal to this Court. We affirm.

Dallas Wyley (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to one count of attempt to commit first degree premeditated murder, one count of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. For these offenses, the Petitioner was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-one years. The incarcerated Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, pro se, which the postconviction court dismissed summarily as untimely. The Petitioner adduced proof that his petition was filed timely pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28. The State concedes that the Petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether his petition was filed timely. We hold that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing the Petitioner’s claim for relief as untimely. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for a hearing to determine whether the petition for post-conviction relief was filed timely and for such other proceedings as may be necessary.

Appellant inmate filed a petition for Declaratory Judgment in the Davidson County
Chancery Court, arguing that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-35-501(i) is
unconstitutional as applied to life sentences with the possibility of parole. The Appellee
Department of Correction filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Appellant’s failure to
seek a Declaratory Order from the Department of Correction constituted the failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Discerning
no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Fred Allen Owens, pro se, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 2003 conviction for second degree murder and his resulting thirty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying him habeas corpus relief from his conviction and sentence because the State failed to file notice of its intent to seek enhanced punishment, violating his due process and equal protection rights. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a trial by jury, the petitioner was found guilty of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and possession of dihydrocodeinone, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to seventeen years for possession of cocaine and to a consecutive eleven months and twenty-nine days for possession of dihydrocodeinone, for a total effective sentence of almost eighteen years. His convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and was appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied all claims for relief. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred in denying his motion for recusal and erred in ruling that the petitioner had not received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This action arises out of a dispute between the parties on issues arising out of an employment contract. The parties have been before this Court previously on this contract, and we ruled that they were required to arbitrate the issues, and remanded the case. Plaintiff employer filed a declaratory judgment action as a dispute arose over the selection of arbitrators. The employer had selected its arbitrator, and the Trial Judge ruled that its selection was appropriate and that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the selected arbitrator was proper under the American Health Lawyers Association rules of procedure for arbitration. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

The defendant, Johnny Leon Hatcher, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court following the revocation of his probationary sentence. The defendant pled guilty to six counts of manufacturing, delivery, sale, or possession of methamphetamine and received an effective six-year sentence, one year to be served in confinement and the balance on community corrections. A violation report was filed and, following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s sentence and ordered the balance of the original sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant does not contest the trial court’s revocation but argues that the court erred in ordering him to serve the sentence in confinement. After review, we conclude no error occurred and affirm the decision of the trial court.