APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant pled guilty in Hardin County Circuit Court to a three count indictment for theft of property, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of a controlled substance. The defendant received an effective sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections.  After seven months in Wayne County Boot Camp, he was placed on probation. A probation violation warrant was issued charging that the defendant had failed to make payments; failed to appear in court; left the state without permission; and been arrested on a new charge. Following a hearing, the probation was revoked, and the defendant timely appealed. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner appeals as of right from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal Petitioner challenges only the post-conviction court’s determination that his trial counsel was effective when Petitioner entered into a guilty plea. After a de novo review, we conclude that petitioner has not established either prong of the Strickland test, and we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.

Defendant Jimmie C. Spratt was convicted of aggravated rape by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a term of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant challenges his conviction and his sentence, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it ruled that he improperly struck potential jurors based on the jurors’ race; (2) whether the trial court should have dismissed the charges against him because there was an unnecessarily long delay between his arrest and his appearance before a magistrate; (3) whether the trial court erred when it refused to suppress a pretrial statement that he gave to police; (4) whether the trial court erred when it refused to suppress evidence that he had been identified by the victim during a physical lineup; (5) whether the trial court erred when it admitted an out of court statement by the victim into evidence; (6) whether the trial court erred when it admitted evidence about the results of a DNA probability test; (7) whether the trial court erred when it allowed the State to call a rebuttal witness; (8) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (9) whether the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the potential range of punishment; and (10) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and we remand this matter for a new trial.

This appeal involves a dispute over the existence of an easement over Defendants Fuchs’ land. Plaintiffs Page and Hanafee brought suit seeking an easement by necessity or a prescriptive easement, as well as damages for Defendants’ alleged inducement of breach of contract. The court below found that Plaintiffs had a prescriptive easement across Defendants’ property, but did not find Defendants liable for damages. Defendants appeal.
 

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s defamation case for failure to state a cause of action. The Trial Judge overruled the motion and on interlocutory appeal, we affirm.

This is a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff filed two identical actions only days apart in Shelby County and Carroll County against the same defendants. The plaintiff non-suited and then re-filed the Carroll County action. Amended complaints were filed in both actions seeking to add a defendant. The plaintiff then asked the Shelby County trial court to transfer the action pending in Shelby County to Carroll County for consolidation. The defendant who was added argued that the Shelby County trial court should dismiss the case for improper venue and that the Carroll County trial court should grant his motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The Shelby County trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to transfer to Carroll County and the Carroll County trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The added defendant appealed. We reverse the Carroll County trial court’s denial of summary judgment and its acceptance of the Shelby County case for consolidation and remand to the Carroll County trial court to determine whether the Shelby County amended complaint was intended to supplement the original complaint or to completely replace it, and whether a named Shelby County defendant was still a defendant in the Shelby County suit when the amended complaint was filed, in order to ascertain if venue was proper as to the added defendant.

This is an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff is a white teacher who was disciplined for his role in an altercation with a black teacher. The plaintiff sued the county school board for discrimination, alleging that he was disciplined because of his race, in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The trial court granted the school board’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand, finding that the plaintiff has proffered direct evidence of discriminatory intent.

The defendant appeals from his Class C felony conviction of possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than .5 grams. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (Supp. 1998).  After entering a best interest guilty plea, the defendant was sentenced to five years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender and fined $2000. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sentence imposed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from an action for divorce filed by plaintiff-Wife in the Crockett County Chancery Court. Following defendant-Husband’s answer and counter-complaint for divorce, the parties entered into a consent order for support and other relief. The court entered an order granting divorce and approving the parties’ agreement. Subsequently, the court entered an order awarding Wife alimony in futuro and a significant amount of the marital assets. The court also found that stock in a corporation was a marital asset and included the stock in Husband’s award of marital assets. Husband appeals both the award of alimony and the court’s characterization of the corporation stock as a marital asset. Tenn.R.App.P. Rule 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.
 

James M. Lane, Jr. appeals by permission of the trial and appellate courts. Indicted for two counts of aggravated perjury, he alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reverse the district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Because the prosecutor relied upon improper grounds for denying diversion, we reverse the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion in denying diversion. We remand to the trial court with instructions that the prosecutor enter into a memorandum of understanding for pretrial diversion with the defendant.