APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this appeal, defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. The defendants were convicted by a Dickson County jury of criminal trespass and fined $50. Upon a review of the record, we find the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

While I concur fully in the judgment of the Court denying the appellant full probation, I do so because the record reflects the appellant has received probation for a number of previous offenses, but has yet to be rehabilitated. Thus, “measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the [appellant].” See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103(c).  This reason alone amply justifies the denial of probation in this case.

The defendant, facing a third trial for first degree murder, has filed this interlocutory appeal. The defendant alleges that the trial court erred in disqualifying his counsel because of an appearance of impropriety. We affirm.

Henry Lee Berry appeals his Knox County conviction for second degree murder. Berry contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence two recorded 911 telephone calls and an order of protection entered against the appellant by the victim; and (3) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial when evidence of a pending rape charge in Nashville was introduced before the jury. Additionally, the appellant urges adoption of DNA testing on decomposed bodies to positively establish the identity of the victim. Although we conclude that admission of the 911 telephone calls and the order of protection was error, the error was harmless. Moreover, finding no other reversible error of law, we affirm the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court.

The defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of simple assault and the consecutive five-year sentences imposed for the aggravated assaults. The defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: 1) whether evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdicts, and 2) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for the two aggravated assault convictions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, based on his failing a drug screen and his delinquency in paying court costs. We hold that the record is insufficient to support the trial court's finding of delinquent payments. However, the failing of the drug screen served as a sufficient basis for the revocation. We affirm the trial court's order. .

The City of Chattanooga asserted, by counter-claim, that the franchise rights of a state-franchised water company had terminated when the original stated corporate existence of ninety-nine years expired. The Hamilton County Chancery Court found that the water company's franchise was separate from the incorporation, that perpetuity of the franchise is the appropriate interpretation when there exists no limiting language in the franchise grant itself, and that the water company had not trespassed by continuing to operate in Chattanooga past the expiration of the original ninety-nine year grant of corporate existence. The judgment of the Chancellor is affirmed.