APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Cleo D. Gadson, entered a best interest guilty plea to attempted second degree murder, agreeing to allow the trial court to determine his sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to nine years, to be served at 30%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it sentenced him because it improperly considered written statements of persons other than the victim. He further contends that the manner of the service of his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that there is no error. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Appellant, Khalid Bashir, was stopped while driving on I-75 North in Bradley County, Tennessee. Tennessee State Troopers issued a speeding citation and searched the vehicle. During the search, they discovered a large bag of marijuana, cocaine, Ecstasy, and two digital scales. The Bradley County Grand Jury indicted Appellant for speeding; driving on a revoked license, second offense; criminal impersonation; possession of cocaine; possession of marijuana; possession of a Schedule I drug; and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the vehicle, arguing that the investigatory stop, length of detention, and warrantless search of his vehicle and backpack were unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant appeals the denial of his motion. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause and the trooper had probable cause to search the vehicle and backpack. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.

David Paul Zwarton ("the Defendant") pleaded guilty to one count of theft of property of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years, leaving the trial court to determine whether the sentence would be served concurrently or consecutively to a four-year sentence imposed by the Coffee County Circuit Court. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his three-year sentence consecutively to his Coffee County sentence. The Defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Frank L. Glavin, appeals his convictions for evading arrest, a Class E felony, and violating the noncriminal implied consent law. He argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the aforementioned convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of conviction for evading arrest, and we reverse and vacate the judgment of conviction for violating the noncriminal implied consent law.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion by the majority to vacate the Defendant’s conviction for violating the implied consent law. On appeal, the Defendant specifically argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of violating the implied consent law. The majority vacates the Defendant’s conviction for violating the implied consent law on procedural grounds, an argument not made by the Defendant on appeal.

This appeal concerns the administration of an estate. Decedent died testate, leaving all of his non-marital property to his surviving spouse and appointing his daughter as executrix. Executrix and Beneficiary initially agreed that administration of the estate was unnecessary. After Beneficiary suffered an injury and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease, Executrix attempted to parcel out the property to Beneficiary’s intended heirs. Shortly thereafter, Beneficiary sought administration of the estate. The trial court admitted the estate and following lengthy hearings regarding which items belonged in the estate, directed Executrix to pay the expenses and close the estate. Beneficiary did not appeal. Over Beneficiary’s objection, Executrix organized an auction of the items held in the estate to satisfy the expenses. Following the auction, Beneficiary filed a petition in which she alleged that Executrix breached her fiduciary duty to the estate by organizing an auction that resulted in waste and mismanagement of estate funds. The trial court denied the petition. Beneficiary appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for McMinn County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Jennifer K. (“Mother”) to the minor children Selena V. and Liliana V. (“the Children”), born in 2007 and 2008 respectively. After a trial, the Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of Mother to the Children after finding that the ground of persistent conditions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(3) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that clear and convincing evidence had been shown that it was in the Children’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm.

The defendant, Steven Hood, pled guilty to robbery and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, in exchange for an effective sentence of eight years, and the trial court imposed a sentence of incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of community corrections. After review, we affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision.

Petitioner, Jarvis McClain, entered a guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court to especially aggravated robbery and received the agreed-upon sentence of thirteen and one-half years in prison as a mitigated offender to be served at 100% release eligibility. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. In this appeal, petitioner claims that trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons: (1) failing to explain the terms of his plea agreement; (2) failing to explain the range of punishment for the offense for which petitioner was indicted; and (3) failing to disclose to petitioner evidence discovered by the investigator. He also claims that the ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Ken Parker (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and first degree premeditated murder. The trial court merged the first degree premeditated murder conviction into the first degree felony murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial with respect to a police officer’s testimony. Additionally, the Defendant alleges that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee alleged that her work as a bookkeeper caused a compensable aggravation of her pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis. Her employer denied her claim. The trial court awarded benefits to the employee, and her employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, David Edmond Rogers, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft over $500, a Class E felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to fifteen years at sixty percent for the aggravated burglary conviction and six years at sixty percent for the theft conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively to his sentences for prior Georgia convictions. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his traffic stop and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Roy Brian Avans, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his effective ten-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering service of the entire sentence without properly considering other available options. We discern no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Lesergio Duran Wilson, petitions this Court for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to recuse. After a thorough review of the petition, this Court concludes that the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion for recusal. The order of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves injuries allegedly sustained by an employee as a result of her employment. The heirs of the deceased employee filed this lawsuit asserting numerous common law tort claims against the deceased employee’s employers. The employers filed separate motions to dismiss, arguing that the exclusive remedy for the alleged injuries was pursuant to the workers’ compensation law, and that the plaintiffs’ common law tort claims were barred. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

An employee alleged that he sustained a compensable injury to his lower back. His employer denied his workers’ compensation claim. At trial, the employee failed to present expert medical testimony. At the conclusion of the employee’s case, the trial court granted the employer’s motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2) because the employee did not present any expert medical testimony. The employee has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jeremy Stevenson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and twenty years. On appeal, Stevenson argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of these offenses. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Brian Edward Owen, has appealed the habeas corpus court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas corpus court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Rodney Watkins, appeals from his conviction by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210 (2010). The Defendant is serving a twenty-five-year sentence as a violent offender. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence about rumors regarding the victim’s disappearance, and (3) the trial court erred in ruling that the defense could not cross-examine a witness about the witness’s prior assault of his stepfather. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Wife and Husband entered into a marital dissolution agreement whereby Husband agreed to pay Wife rehabilitative alimony for three years. Husband terminated these payments and filed a petition to modify when Wife remarried and her employment situation improved. Wife filed motion for summary judgment on the issue asserting that the alimony payments could not be modified or terminated. The trial court ruled the alimony payments could not be modified because they were contractual in nature and awarded Wife her attorney’s fees. Husband appealed both the court’s ruling as well as the award of fees. We reverse the trial court’s judgment that the rehabilitative alimony payments are unmodifiable because the applicable statute expressly provides that a court may modify this type of alimony upon a showing of a substantial and material change of circumstances. We affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees based on the language of the parties’ agreement providing for the award of these fees.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Derrick Sawyers, filed a "Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to T[enn.] R. Civ. P. Rule 60.02" in the Criminal Court for Davidson County, alleging that (1) his sentences were illegal and (2) the trial court violated his due process rights. The trial court treated the motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it denied relief, and this appeal followed. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey Scott Petty, was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of first degree felony murder and arson and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and five years, respectively. On appeal, Petty argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that his statement to law enforcement was a confession rather than an admission against interest. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to three children who had been placed in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. The mother had made some progress in complying with the permanency plan developed by the Department, but was still experiencing “instability.” Nearly two years after the mother relinquished control of the children, the Department petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The trial court granted the petition, terminating the mother’s parental rights on the ground that the conditions that led to the children’s removal continued with little likelihood of remedy. The mother appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Floyd Rodriquez Johnson, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving an effective twenty-five year sentence in the Department of Correction following his guilty pleas to multiple drug charges. On appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends trial counsel was ineffective by failing to ensure that the petitioner understood the terms of the plea agreement and the resulting sentencing consequences if the petitioner failed to complete a drug rehabilitation furlough. Following review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly determined that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel and that the pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily. The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed.

This case involves monetary damages for contempt of court. The respondent owned a parcel of land as tenants in common with his brother. When the brother died, the deceased brother’s children inherited his interest in the property. The deceased brother’s daughters filed this petition against the respondent to partition the property. The trial court entered an order equitably dividing the property between the respondent and the two petitioner sisters and requiring the respondent to remove personal property, junk, and debris he had placed on the parcel awarded to the sisters. The respondent was found in contempt for failing to remove the debris, and again ordered to do so. Apparently unhappy with this order, the respondent proceeded to remove, damage, or destroy fixtures and structures on the property awarded to the sisters, including a pole barn, several sheds, and a garage with an apartment. He also failed to remove the junk and debris as specified in the trial court’s order. The petitioner sisters filed a second petition for contempt and sought contempt damages for the harm done to the buildings, fixtures, and structures. The trial court found the respondent in contempt a second time, based on his continued failure to remove the junk and debris. However, the trial court declined to award contempt damages to the petitioner sisters under T.C.A. § 29-9105 for the destruction of the structural improvements on the property, finding that it was not within the parameters of the trial court’s initial order. The petitioner sisters appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm.