APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Two subcontractors recovered judgments for work done on a construction project in Clarksville. On appeal the general contractor and the surety on his bond allege that the appellees were not licensed contractors and that neither complied with the notice of nonpayment statute. In addition, the appellant disputes the trial court’s version of the proof and the award of prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant, Roy D. Nelson, stands convicted of burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson and possession of marijuana as a result of his efforts to blow up his ex-wife's home. Nelson received his convictions at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Washington County Criminal Court. A Range III offender, Nelson is presently serving an effective 62-year sentence in the Department of Correction for his crimes. In this direct appeal, Nelson claims he was improperly convicted of aggravated arson because he, rather than another person, suffered the serious bodily injury relied upon to elevate the offense from arson to aggravated arson. Having reviewed the appellate record, the arguments of the parties and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Roy D. Nelson, stands convicted of burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson and possession of marijuana as a result of his efforts to blow up his ex-wife's home. Nelson received his convictions at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Washington County Criminal Court. A Range III offender, Nelson is presently serving an effective 62-year sentence in the Department of Correction for his crimes.1 In this direct appeal, Nelson claims he was improperly convicted of aggravated arson because he, rather than another person, suffered the serious bodily injury relied upon to elevate the offense from arson to aggravated arson. Having reviewed the appellate record, the arguments of the parties and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mark Crites appeals from the revocation of his community corrections sentence. He challenges both the propriety of that revocation and his resentencing, arguing that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections sentence; (2) the trial court misapplied certain enhancement factors and that his sentences are, therefore, excessive; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. After careful review of the record and arguments of counsel, we conclude the trial court relied upon improper evidence in revoking the community corrections sentence. We remand for another revocation hearing.

The only question presented in this complaint is whether a law making all felonies infamous crimes can, upon conviction, be applied to crimes committed before the date of the act. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment. We affirm.