APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant-Appellant, Darius L. Brown, entered eleven guilty pleas in five different cases in the Sullivan County Criminal Court. He received an effective nine-year sentence at thirty percent pursuant to his plea agreement, with the manner of service of his sentence to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, Brown argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The pro se petitioner, Tony Scott Walker, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that due process considerations should toll the statute of limitations and that he is entitled to error coram nobis relief on the basis of his discovery that one of the State's witnesses may have fabricated or falsified evidence at his trial. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The owners of a piece of commercial property brought an unlawful detainer action against a lessee who had stopped paying rent. The trial court issued a judgment of $33,450 against the lessee for past-due rent, followed by a writ of ejectment. After the lessee moved from the property, the owners sued to collect the rent due on the five-year lease and for damages to the property. The lessee argued that irregularities in the execution of the lease rendered it unenforceable. The trial court determined that the lease was enforceable and that the lessee could be held personally liable for a judgment in the amount of $326,716.74. We find that the parties did not reach the meeting of the minds that is necessary to form an enforceable contract, and we accordingly reverse.

The Defendant, Steve Fredrick Rickett, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court for second degree murder for which he was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to sixteen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant contends the following: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred in allowing expert witness testimony because the Defendant received inadequate notice of the scope of the expert's testimony and in not granting a continuance, (3) the trial court erred in allowing the county medical examiner to testify to the effects of alcohol and narcotics on the victim, (4) the trial court erred in failing to grant the Defendant's motion for a continuance to allow a defense expert additional time to test the shirt the victim was wearing when she was shot, (5) the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the Defendant's statements to police, (6) the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the toxicology report during the trial, and (7) the trial court erred in failing to respond properly to the jury's questions requesting a definition of heat of passion and whether "voluntary intoxication" constituted "heat of passion." We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Charles Williams, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to consecutive sentences of life and fifteen years for the felony murder and especially aggravated robbery convictions, respectively. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on the constructive amendment of the indictment in his case; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Gary Vincent Elmore, for one count of statutory rape. Appellant entered a best interest plea to the offense as charged with the provision that he would serve a sentence of one year on probation and that the trial court would hold a hearing to consider his eligibility for judicial diversion. At the hearing, Appellant testified that he had previously been convicted of driving under the influence ("DUI") in Kentucky. His testimony was the only evidence regarding this conviction. Appellant argued that the DUI conviction would be considered a Class C misdemeanor, while the State argued that it should be considered a Class A misdemeanor. A previous Class A misdemeanor would disqualify Appellant from being eligible for judicial diversion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that he was not eligible for judicial diversion because the prior DUI conviction from Kentucky would be considered a Class A misdemeanor in Tennessee. Appellant now appeals the trial court's denial of judicial diversion. We conclude that Appellant's testimony regarding the prior DUI conviction was sufficient proof and that the trial court correctly based its determination of the classification of the Kentucky offense on the elements of the offense as opposed to the accompanying sentence. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's denial of judicial diversion.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of  findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee fell from a platform at work. The injury was accepted by his employer as compensable. After a period of medical treatment, the authorized physicians released the employee to return to work with no permanent impairment or restrictions. The employee sought medical treatment on his own. Ultimately, he had surgery on his back and neck. He filed suit against his employer. Employee had two previous workers’ compensation awards. Several months later, he amended his complaint to add the Second Injury Fund as a defendant. After a trial on the merits, the trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury which resulted in an 85% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The court apportioned the award according to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(b). It then dismissed all claims against the Second Injury Fund, based upon the statute of limitations. It awarded some medical expenses claimed by the employee, but denied others. On appeal, the employee asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the claim against the Fund, by incorrectly determining the percentage of disability represented by his earlier settlements, and by declining to award all requested medical expenses. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

The Defendant, Ket T. Voun, a Cambodian native, was convicted, upon his guilty pleas, of aggravated robbery and facilitation of second degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the Davidson County Criminal Court ordered him to serve his eight-year sentence for facilitation of second degree murder in total confinement. He now appeals, arguing that, due to his likely deportation for these crimes, a probationary sentence was warranted. After a review of the record, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court.

Anne Dowd and Ferrell Ervin filed a motion to intervene and to stay the distribution of the estate of Cleo M. Snapp, claiming they were heirs of the estate. Ms. Dowd asserted that she was the non-marital child of Thomas Ervin, a brother of Ms. Snapp, and Mr. Ervin asserted that his father, Ben Ervin, was the non-marital child of Thomas Ervin. The executrix of the estate responded by filing a motion to deny their claims. After a hearing, the trial court granted the executrix's motion to deny the claims because they were untimely. We affirm.

The petitioner, Author Ray Turner, claims that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition for writ for habeas corpus relief. The petition claims that his sentence is illegal because his release eligibility of 30 percent violates statutory law requiring that he served 100 percent of his sentence as a "multiple rapist." See T.C.A. _ 39-13-523 (Supp.1994). We agree that the defendant's aggravated rape sentences are illegal and that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his claim. We remand to the Morgan County Circuit Court for appointment of counsel and a hearing to determine the proper remedy.

This is a condemnation case in which the City of Brentwood acquired 0.72 acres of land by eminent domain for the purpose of constructing a 2.5 million gallon water tank. Following a trial, the jury awarded $43,200 for the value of the land taken and $194,850 for the incidental damages to the remainder of the property. The City's ability to take the land and the amount awarded for the value of the land taken is not in question; rather, the City appeals the amount of incidental damages awarded. Finding no error, we affirm.

This case in on appeal for the second time after remand for determination of the defendant's request for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the trial court's award. After reviewing the record, we reverse in part and affirm in part the trial court's judgment.

This appeal concerns a primary lien holder's security interest in certain real property following a foreclosure sale and the obligation of a third-party purchaser of the foreclosed property to remit to the lien holder rents collected after notice of mortgage acceleration. The plaintiff contended that the defendant bank was not entitled to claim priority for any additional indebtedness above the original principal amount stipulated in the Deed of Trust, plus interest and attorney's fees. The plaintiff further alleged that the bank's payment in full of the first mortgage holder's loan constituted a release of this loan and not an assignment. The defendant bank claimed that the plaintiff was liable to it for rent collected by the plaintiff on the property after notice of the mortgage acceleration. The trial court ordered that the defendant bank was not required to release its lien on the property until all of the funds due were paid and that the plaintiff must pay the defendant bank $6,300 in rent payments. We affirm.

The petitioner, Ronald Dotson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. The petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. As a repeat violent offender, the petitioner received consecutive sentences of life without parole. These sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to another unrelated set of aggravated robberies for which the petitioner was sentenced to life without parole. In this appeal, the petitioner claims that his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to grant a continuance and failure to grant a mistrial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Kenneth Ross Jackson, appeals the denial of judicial diversion from the Hamilton County Criminal Court. He entered pleas of guilty to theft of property in excess of $1000, a Class D felony; filing a false report to a law enforcement officer, a Class D felony; and theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a Range I offender to concurrent terms of two years, suspended to supervised probation for both Class D felony convictions. He was sentenced to a concurrent term of eleven months and twenty-nine days on unsupervised probation for the Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, the defendant contends that he was improperly denied judicial diversion. After careful review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Father appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights. Finding that Father was in substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan and that termination was in the child's best interest, the court's decision is affirmed.

Plaintiff brought this action, asserting that defendants were constructing a fence which impacted on her driveway right-of-way, and sought an injunction against the construction of the fence. The Trial Court determined the fence was being constructed on defendants' property and denied plaintiff relief. However, the Trial Court also determined that the fence served no useful purpose, and suggested it was a spite fence. Plaintiff has appealed. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Judge as modified, the modification being that the defendant had testified in the Trial Court that he was building a fence of the same style and character as the fence around the rest of his property, which was a split board type, and would not block plaintiff's view. We modify the Judgment to restrict the defendants to constructing a fence as depicted in the exhibits filed in the Trial Court, i.e., the same type of fence he has constructed around the remainder of his property.

The parties each own a one-half undivided interest in property previously used as medical offices. MBC filed a complaint for partition and sale, which the trial court granted, finding that the property could not be partitioned in kind and that it was to the parties’ advantage to sell it. Dr. Couch appeals, and we affirm.

The Defendant, Jason Lee White, was convicted by a jury of one count of burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping. In this direct appeal, he contends that the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion to set aside his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping; and (2) in upholding the State's use of a peremptory challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). After our review, we reverse and dismiss the Defendant's especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Levi Battle, III, of possession of twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and the trial court sentenced him as a career offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, the Petitioner challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, and we affirmed the trial court's judgment. State v. Levi Battle, III, No. M2006-00288-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 957207, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 29, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2007). The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Jonathan Jasper Smith, entered guilty pleas in the Sullivan County Circuit Court to one count of attempting to obtain narcotics by fraud, a Class D felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent sentences of two years as a Range I, standard offender, and eleven months twenty-nine days, respectively. In a separate case, the Defendant pled guilty to violation of a habitual traffic offender order, a Class E felony; speeding, a Class C misdemeanor; and failure to show proof of financial responsibility, a Class C misdemeanor. He received an effective sentence of two years for these offenses to be served consecutively to the drug-related cases. The manner of service was left to the trial court's determination. Following an alternative sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and all other forms of alternative sentencing. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Marvin J. Hill, of first degree premeditated murder, see T.C.A. _ 39-13-202 (2003), and abuse of a corpse, see id. _ 39-17-312. The trial court imposed sentences of life imprisonment and six years, respectively, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of life in prison. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have suppressed bodily fluids obtained from the victim's body as fruit of the defendant's unconstitutionally procured statement, contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence telephone calls the defendant placed while in jail and a videotape recording of the victim's body being recovered by authorities, asserts that the trial court should not have ruled that he could be impeached by convictions greater than 10 years old, claims that the trial court erred by permitting the State to argue that the victim had been raped prior to her death, and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Thomas T. Nicholson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief in the Criminal Court for Loudon County from his conviction upon a plea of nolo contendere to sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, for which he received a six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that as a result, his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently entered. We hold that the Petitioner received the ineffective assistance of counsel because he was given erroneous advice about release eligibility. We reverse the judgment of the trial court denying post-conviction relief, we vacate the Petitioner's conviction, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant was indicted for sale and delivery of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, both Class C felonies. A jury acquitted the Defendant of the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of simple possession or casual exchange of a Schedule II controlled substance. The jury also convicted the Defendant of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to fifteen years confinement for the delivery conviction. In his appeal as of right, the Defendant raises five issues for this court's review: (1) whether the verdicts were inconsistent; (2) whether the convictions for simple possession or casual exchange merge with the delivery conviction; (3) whether the Defendant received a fair trial when jurors were found sleeping during the presentation of evidence; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance; and (5) whether the Defendant received a fair trial when he was intoxicated and unable to assist trial counsel at the time of trial. We conclude that the issues regarding the sleeping jurors and the Defendant's alleged intoxication are waived because the Defendant failed to file a timely motion for a new trial. Following our review, we conclude that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. However, we conclude that the judgments do not properly reflect the jury's verdict or the trial court's merger of the offenses Therefore, we remand the case for correction of the judgments.