Court Rulings

This is an expedited appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Based on the Appellant's failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Olajowon D. Smith, entered guilty pleas to one count of possession of 0.5 ounces or more of marijuana with the intent to deliver, a Class E felony, and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class C misdemeanor. Although the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation ("TBI") provided a certification that the Defendant had no prior convictions disqualifying him from eligibility for diversion, the trial court found that he had previously served time in confinement for a Class A misdemeanor and that he was accordingly ineligible for diversion. The court sentenced the Defendant to an aggregate eighteen-month sentence, with sixty days to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. The Defendant appeals, challenging the trial court's determination that his prior conviction was a Class A rather than a Class C misdemeanor and its failure to weigh the appropriate diversionary factors. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings and that the trial court was not required to consider the diversionary factors once it determined the Defendant was ineligible for diversion, and we affirm the judgment.

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the decision by the defen- dant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford granting the application of the defendant P, filed on behalf of the defendant P Co., for approval for the location of an automotive repair business on certain real property. The board had referred P Co.'s application to the city's Planning Board and Engineering Bureau for comment. The Planning Board recommended that the application be denied. The Engineering Bureau did not object to the application but expressed various concerns. The board thereafter published notice of a public hearing on the applica- tion, which stated that P Co. sought to operate a used car dealership on the property. The board approved the application subject to certain conditions, which included concerns expressed by the Engineering Bureau. The plaintiff, which owned property that abutted the site at issue, claimed, inter alia, that the board failed to conduct a suitability analysis, as required by statute ([Rev. to 2003] § 14-55). The Superior Court concluded that the board had given due consideration to the suitability of the property and rendered judgment denying the appeal. The plaintiff then appealed to this court, which concluded that the General Assembly had not repealed § 14-55 in 2003, and reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceed- ings. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which deter- mined that the General Assembly had repealed § 14-55 in 2003 and reversed in part this court's judgment and remanded the case to this court to consider the plaintiff's remaining claims. Held: 1. The plaintiff's claim that the notice of the public hearing on P Co.'s application was defective and, thus, deprived the board of jurisdiction to consider the application, was unavailing; because the legislature has not enacted a proper substitute for § 14-55, which had set forth the requirements for prehearing notice regarding loca