APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Mario Antwan Fulgham, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for facilitation of first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The Petitioner argues that he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel committed ineffective assistance in failing to pursue defenses of intoxication or diminished capacity and in failing to advise the Petitioner of his right of allocution at sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her child, asserting that the findings of the Juvenile Court that she abandoned the child by failing to provide a suitable home, that the conditions which led to the removal of the child persisted, and that termination of her rights were in the best interest of the child are unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The matters at issue pertain to the alleged negligence of a Davidson County probation officer and the quasi-judicial immunity defense. Plaintiff, a probationer who was arrested and detained in jail on a probation violation warrant, filed this action alleging he was unlawfully arrested and jailed because his probation officer negligently failed to recall a probation warrant after he cured the deficiencies for which it was issued. The trial court granted the probation officer's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss based on the defense of quasi-judicial immunity because the complaint asserted that she was acting in her capacity as his probation officer when she failed to recall the warrant. Plaintiff insists this was error, contending the probation officer is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because she was not performing a function essential to the judicial process and she had no discretion but to recall the warrant. We affirm.

The Defendant, James G. Coons, pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, contending the trial court did not adequately consider his mental health as a mitigating factor in his punishment. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. As such, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

A jury convicted the defendant of burglary and theft in connection with the break-in of a dental office. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions, finding that the evidence, which included a white shirt bearing the defendant's DNA found at the crime scene, was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Upon further review by this Court, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Harold James Greenleaf, Jr., appeals from the order of the trial court denying his petition requesting forensic DNA analysis. Upon his plea of guilty in 2000, the Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to forty years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner seeks DNA testing of evidence related to the investigation and prosecution. After our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the Rutherford County Circuit Court.

The Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to death for each murder conviction. He received consecutive twenty-five year sentences for the especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004). The Appellant subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court. He now appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues numerous violations of his constitutional rights during his trial proceedings, including denial of the effective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Adam D. Sluder, pled guilty to theft over $500, two counts of violating the sexual offender registration law, six counts of statutory rape, and felony failure to appear, all Class E felonies. The Defendant received a two-year sentence for each offense as a Range I, standard offender with the failure to appear sentence to be served consecutively, for an effective four-year sentence. The trial court denied the Defendant's request to serve his sentence on probation or in community corrections. The Defendant appeals the trial court's decision, contending that confinement is an improper punishment given the nature of the offenses, his criminal history, and his rehabilitation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

K.C. ("Grandmother") filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of C.W.M. ("Father") to the minor children Christopher M., Jr. and Darius M. ("the Children"), and to adopt the Children. The case was tried and the parties stipulated that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under Tenn. Code Ann. __ 36-1-113(g)(6) and (g)(7). After trial, the Trial Court entered its order terminating Father's parental rights finding and holding, inter alia, that it was in the best interest of the Children for Father's parental rights to be terminated. Father appeals to this Court the finding that it was in the best interest of the Children for his parental rights to be terminated. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to the Appellees. After reviewing the record, we find that the order granting summary judgment fails to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04, as it does not "state the legal grounds upon which the court denies or grants the motion." Consequently, this Court cannot proceed with our review and must vacate the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a disciplinary proceeding against a Memphis lawyer whose practice focuses on immigration law. Following a hearing, one of the Board of Professional Responsibility's hearing panels unanimously determined that the lawyer should be suspended from the practice of law for one year and should be required to make restitution to three clients. The lawyer sought judicial review of the hearing panel's suspension of his license. Based on the record of the proceedings before the hearing panel, the Chancery Court for Shelby County determined that twenty-three of the twenty-six courses of conduct found by the hearing panel to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct were supported by substantial and material evidence and that the evidence supported the hearing panel's reliance on seven aggravating factors. Accordingly, the trial court determined that the suspension of the lawyer's license for one year was supported by the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) and was not arbitrary and capricious. The lawyer appealed to this Court. We affirm the suspension of the lawyer's license to practice law for one year and the order directing him to make restitution to three of his clients.

The appellant, Willie James Krisle, was convicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court of two counts of the sale of less than .5 grams of a substance containing cocaine, see Tenn. Code Ann. _ 39-17-417(c)(2)(A), and he received a total effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, specifically contending that there was insufficient evidence corroborating the testimony of his accomplice, co-defendant Robert Hargrove. Upon review, we affirm the appellant's convictions.

The Warren County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Andy McAmis, for one count of aggravated assault in connection with a fight. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eight years as a Range II, standard offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and to rebut his assertion of the affirmative defense of self-defense; the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; and the trial court erred in admitting inflammatory photographs. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in denying the mistrial or allowing the photographs into evidence. However, there is a mistake on the judgment form identifying Appellant as a Range I offender instead of a Range II offender. Therefore we affirm Appellant's conviction but remand for correction of the judgment.

The defendant, Cassandra Hendricks Franklin, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In a timely appeal to this court, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction and that the trial court erred by denying defense counsel's motion to withdraw from representation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Lori Michelle Waller, appeals following the revocation of her probation. The Appellant admitted her violation of probation. In her brief, the Appellant alleges that her term of split confinement has been served. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the decision of the lower court. After review of the pleadings and record before this Court, we conclude that the State's motion is well-taken. Accordingly, the action of the lower court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Joe Maine, was convicted of the 1997 first degree murder of Amy Lynn King and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The Defendant waived a jury determination of his sentence, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and a concurrent twenty-five year sentence for the conspiracy conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends, relative to his first degree murder conviction, that (1) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his statement; (2) the trial court erred in declining to declare a mistrial when inadmissible photographs were published to the jury; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to use the actual skull of the victim as an exhibit for demonstrative purposes; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (5) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant; and (6) the trial court erred in not granting a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 1985, a jury found the petitioner, David W. Dunn, guilty of first degree murder. He received a life sentence. In his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner contended that the judgment against him was void because the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose a life sentence with a thirty percent release eligibility. The habeas corpus court denied relief and remanded the case to the Criminal Court of Davidson County for entry of a corrected judgment. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the petitioner failed to timely file his notice of appeal and that his claims do not warrant consideration in the "interest of justice." Therefore, we dismiss his appeal.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Chase Courtland Powell, of one count of theft and one count of robbery. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and that the convicting evidence was legally insufficient to support his robbery conviction. We hold that the evidence supports his robbery conviction, but we note that the judgments of conviction reflect sentences for both theft and robbery in contravention of the protections against double jeopardy. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction judgment for theft is vacated, and the jury's guilty verdict for the theft is merged into the judgment of conviction of robbery. The defendant's robbery sentence is affirmed, and we remand solely for the correction and entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with this opinion.

Appellant, John W. Couch, was indicted by the Franklin County Grand Jury for one count of cruelty to animals. After a guilty plea, Appellant was sentenced by the trial court to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Class A misdemeanor. The trial court ordered Appellant to spend forty-five days in incarceration and the balance of the sentence on supervised probation "until all requirements [are] met." The trial court also required Appellant to pay a $1,000 fine and perform 50 hours of community service as part of his sentence. The trial court denied a motion for new trial and/or reduction of sentence. Appellant appeals, arguing that he was improperly sentenced. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect Appellant's eligibility for work release.

A jury found the defendant, Perry Avram March, guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder and two counts of solicitation to commit first degree murder. The trial court merged the solicitation counts into the conspiracy count and entered a judgment for conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The court sentenced the defendant to twenty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether a fatal variance existed between the evidence presented at trial and the allegations in count one of the indictment; (2) whether solicitation to commit first degree murder is protected speech under the First Amendment; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial; (4) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's discussions about express kidnappings in Mexico; (5) whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury concerning the mens rea for the discrete elements of conspiracy to commit a homicide; (6) whether the trial court's instruction of criminal responsibility permitted the jury to impute the conduct of another to the defendant; (7) whether the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's request to instruct the jury that they could not convict the defendant of more than one offense; (8) whether the defendant's sentence is excessive; and (9) whether the Sixth Amendment requires that the facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant, and (10) whether the cumulative effect of the errors during the defendant's trial violated his due process guarantees. After a thorough review of the record, the parties' briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se defendant in an unlawful detainer action appeals an award of summary judgment in favor of the ultimate purchaser at foreclosure. Because the purchaser has demonstrated undisputed facts that show the existence of the elements of its unlawful detainer action, and because the defendant has failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment. We further dismiss the defendant's remaining issues.

The pro se defendant in an unlawful detainer action appeals an award of summary judgment in favor of the ultimate purchaser at foreclosure.  Because the purchaser has demonstrated undisputed facts that show the existence of the elements of its unlawful detainer action, and because the defendant has failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. We further dismiss the defendant’s remaining issues.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children. The trial court found three grounds upon which Father's parental rights could be terminated: lack of mental capacity to care for the children, abandonment by failure to visit, and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. The psychologist who testified at trial stated that Father was presently unable to properly care for his children due to the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. The psychologist also testified that it was possible Father could become a competent parent with the proper medication and treatment. The Department, however, provided no mental health services to assist Father. The statutory ground of mental incompetency as a basis for the termination of a parent's rights requires clear and convincing proof that the parent's mental condition is presently so impaired and is so likely to remain so that it is unlikely the parent will be able to care for the children in the near future. The Department proved that Father's mental condition was such that he could not presently care for the children; however, the Department failed to prove that Father's mental condition is likely to remain impaired to the degree that it is unlikely Father will be able to care for the children in the near future. We have also determined the Department was not excused from exerting reasonable efforts and yet it failed to establish that it exerted reasonable efforts to assist Father to accomplish the goal of reunification because it provided no services that dealt with the root of Father's problems, his mental illness. For the above reasons, we find the Department failed to prove any ground upon which Father's parental rights could be terminated. Accordingly, we reverse the termination of Father's parental rights.

Employee, whose employer provided services pursuant to a contract with hospital, sustained injuries from a fall while working on hospital's premises. Employee subsequently filed a negligence action against hospital. The trial court permitted employer to intervene in the suit. Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that hospital was the principal contractor pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-113 and the exclusive remedy rule barred employee's negligence suit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of hospital, and employee appealed. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a post-divorce case in which the trial court found the appellant to be in criminal contempt. Procedural deficiencies by the trial court require reversal.