APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

On May 21, 2001, the appellant, Gary W. Young, pleaded guilty to sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance within a thousand feet of a school. He received concurrent twenty-one year sentences for each count. As part of the plea agreement the appellant attempted to reserve a certified question of law to be presented on appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 37(b)(2)(i). This question concerns the propriety of a search. On June 19, 2001, the appellant also attempted to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f). The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on this Court's holding in State v. Hall, 983 S.W.2d 710 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998 overruled by State v. Green, 106 S.W.3d 646 2003)). This appeal followed. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to properly certify an appeal to this Court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 37(b)(2)(i), and this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion to suppress. However, the appeal of the denied motion to withdraw a guilty plea is properly before this court, and this case must be remanded for consideration of the motion in view of the Tennessee Supreme Court decision in State v. Greene, 106 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2003), which overruled State v. Hall. Finally, the allegation concerning the legality of the appellant's sentences, which has been raised for the first time on appeal, may be presented to the trial court on remand for consideration as a ground to allow withdrawal of the plea

The trial court found the defendant, Tim Mattingly, violated the terms of his ten-year community corrections sentence. It ordered him to serve three years "day for day" in the county jail before serving the remainder of his ten-year sentence on community corrections. In this appeal, the defendant argues the trial court acted without authority in imposing this sentence. We conclude the trial court imposed an illegal sentence and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition following his nolo contendere pleas to aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and evading arrest. He contends his trial counsel did not provide him with effective assistance when he entered into the plea agreement. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

We granted review in this medical malpractice case to address whether the plaintiff, Carolyn Stovall, established a genuine issue of material fact as to the recognized standard of professional practice in the community in which the defendants, Dr. Lois E. Clarke and Dr. Robert McCain, practiced or in a similar community. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and later denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the summary judgments. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Clarke but affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. McCain. After reviewing the record and the applicable authority, we hold that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Dr. Clarke. We further conclude that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the grant of summary judgment to Dr. McCain. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

A Robertson County jury convicted the defendant, Dewayne Chambers, of kidnapping and rape. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years for the kidnapping conviction and eight years for the rape conviction to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Steve Mason, brings the instant appeal of the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for relief. The petitioner stands convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. In this appeal, he alleges that he is entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis that the facts introduced at trial are insufficient to support his convictions and because he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. He argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his divorce attorney, who thereafter became his initial trial attorney, failed to attend a polygraph examination and advise petitioner of the protocol, limitations, and requirements necessary to complete the examination. The petitioner further asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by his second trial attorney because this attorney was unprepared to argue a motion to suppress and failed to adequately investigate factual allegations, review juvenile court records, call critical witnesses, pursue leads that would have established a conspiracy by the petitioner's wife to wrongfully prosecute him, and let the petitioner review the brief filed on direct appeal. Based upon our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

After the death of their elderly mother, her sons discovered that the decedent's stepson and his wife had used a power of attorney to transfer the funds from the decedent's $20,000 CD to themselves. The decedent's son filed a petition to have the money restored to her estate. The trial court held that the CD was a valid inter vivos gift from the decedent. We reverse, because there is no evidence in the record that such a gift was ever made.

The Appellant, Andrew Cole, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Gibson County Circuit Court. Cole is currently incarcerated as a result of his jury convictions for attempted first degree murder, attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Cole raises the issues of: (1) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint “new counsel” for him at trial; and (3) whether he was improperly sentenced as a multiple offender. After review of the issues, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant appeals his conviction of rape and his ten-year sentence. The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erroneously allowed the victim to testify, and that expert testimony should not have been admitted into evidence. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in sentencing. After careful review, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and the trial court did not err. We affirm the conviction and the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals her sentence of four years for voluntary manslaughter. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her any form of alternative sentencing. We conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Charles W. Cole, pled guilty on February 4, 2000, to five sexual offenses and, in January 2001, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the dismissal of the petition

The Defendant, Ricky Thompson, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, aggravated assault, and arson. He was sentenced to death for the first degree murder. Upon the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial court entered an order modifying the jury's verdicts to not guilty by reason of insanity. The State raises one principal issue in this direct appeal, which it states as follows: whether the trial court erred in reversing the jury's determination of guilt and granting the Defendant a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity on charges of first degree murder, aggravated assault, and arson. Because we find the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's verdicts, we reverse the trial court's order, reinstate the jury's verdicts, and remand the case to the trial court for consideration of the Defendant's motion for a new trial and sentencing on the aggravated assault and arson convictions.

The petitioner, Redonna Hanna, was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of especially aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of first degree murder. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by not objecting to the trial court's instructions as to criminal responsibility. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm the dismissal.