APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves the decision of the Davidson County, Tennessee, Juvenile Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction, other than temporary emergency jurisdiction, in a child custody case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This dispute arose after the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metro") rezoned property owned by the plaintiff, The Westchester Company, LLC ("Westchester"), from multi-family to single-family. As a result of the zoning change, Westchester was unable to carry through with its contract to sell the property to a third party for the development of multi-family town houses. Westchester sought a declaratory judgment as to whether it had a vested right in the previous zoning classification by virtue of the fact (1) that it relied upon statements made by Metro employees regarding the then-existing zoning and Westchester's rights under that zone; (2) that the rezoning caused it to lose the profit it would have received under the contract; and (3) that it is potentially liable for breach of contract. As an alternative theory of recovery, Westchester argued that the zoning change amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its property. The trial court ruled in favor of Metro and dismissed Westchester's claims. Westchester appeals, but only as to the trial court's determination that it did not have a vested right in the previous zoning. We affirm.

I agree completely with the excellent opinion authored by Judge Lee. I write separately to emphasize what I believe is the most important aspect of this case: the plaintiff, as an incarcerated person, had no place to go, i.e., he could not leave the recreation room to completely avoid the water problem! He was “trapped” along with the seven or eight other inmates in the room. This event happened at night when the sleeping mats of the inmates obviously covered a portion of the floor, thereby further reducing the walking area. I am sure – as the dissent emphasizes – that there was some light in the room; but it obviously wasn’t lighted to the full extent. In the evening, the room was a sleeping area, not a recreation room.

The Appellant, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a handwritten pro se petition seeking review by common law writ of certiorari following a denial of parole by the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. The board filed a motion to dismiss the petition, citing several defects with the Appellant’s petition. The trial court granted the Appellant time to cure the defects. The Appellant subsequently filed a motion to amend his petition in an effort to comply with the trial court’s directives, however, the trial court subsequently entered an order dismissing the Appellant’s petition. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a post-trial “Motion to Rehear.”  When the trial court did not address the motion, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.  We hold that the Appellant’s post-trial motion is, in actuality, a motion to alter or amend the judgment, therefore, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the motion.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred when it granted two petitions for writ of certiorari, held that the city court's penalties issued to Marcus Dixon and Anthony Barnett violated Article VI, Section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution, and held that the city court's procedure for collection of fines in chronological order violated public policy. The appellant asserts (1) that the appellees' use of petitions for writ of certiorari were used impermissibly as a substitute for appeal; (2) that the issues raised by the appellees in their petitions for writ of certiorari were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (3) that the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. City of Chattanooga, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001), applied prospectively and, thus, did not apply to the appellees' penalties; and (4) that the city court's collection of fines in chronological order was not against public policy. We affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the trial court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The State of Tennessee appeals the assessment of discretionary costs in an eminent domain action. The property owner was awarded her discretionary costs after the jury awarded her damages in excess of that tendered by the State. The State contends it is exempt from discretionary costs in eminent domain actions. We agree.

The majority finds defendant 100% at fault in the face of the Trial Court’s ruling that each party was 50% at fault. In my opinion, the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that plaintiff was 50% at fault for his fall and injuries. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

The petitioner, Robert Michael Winters, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue on appeal is whether the petition was timely filed. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, contending that: (1) counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately inform him of the consequences of his plea; and (2) his pleas were coerced by counsel's assurances that he would be placed in the DeBerry Special Needs Facility. Upon review, we conclude that counsel explained the consequences of the pleas with the petitioner and that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, as it was made clear to the him that placement was not part of his plea agreement but was within the discretion of the Department of Correction. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This appeal involves a continuing post-divorce dispute regarding child support and related issues. Seven years after the divorce, the former husband filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Marshall County requesting the court to recalculate his child support obligation and to re-establish visitation that had been suspended earlier because of non-payment of child support and failure to abide by the court's orders. The former wife responded by requesting that her former husband be held in contempt for failing to comply with the earlier court orders. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order finding the former husband in "civil" contempt. The court sentenced the former husband to a mandatory ten-day jail sentence and ordered that he remain incarcerated until he paid a portion of his child support arrearage and other financial obligations. The court also recalculated the former husband's child support obligation and ordered the resumption of visitation. On this appeal, the former husband takes issue with the contempt judgment, the earlier suspension of his visitation, and the denial of his request to claim the children as dependents for income tax purposes. While we have determined that the judgment of contempt cannot stand because it is procedurally defective, we find that the remainder of the trial court's August 22, 2003 order is legally and factually sound.

Petitioner, Scott Bradley Price, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Petitioner was convicted for rape of a child and sentenced as a Range I offender, to twenty-one years at one hundred percent, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, Petitioner challenged only the length of his sentence. This Court affirmed that judgment on November 19, 2001. State v. Scott Bradley Price, No. E2000-00441-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1464555 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2001). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was subsequently amended by appointed counsel. In his appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because (1) trial counsel did not investigate Petitioner's claims that his audio recorded confession was materially altered; (2) trial counsel did not advise Petitioner to testify in order to rebut the State's evidence; and (3) trial counsel did not use available medical records to challenge the accuser's testimony at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the defendant of theft of property, $500-$1,000, and forgery of assignment of title. On appeal the defendant presents three issues: (1) Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a retrial based upon newly discovered evidence; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We have reviewed the record and have found all of the defendant's issues to be without merit. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Darrell Phillips, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the court had no authority to revoke his suspended sentences because the State did not seek this action until after the sentences had expired. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Over a span of several years, the Petitioner, Steve G. Hutton, was convicted of eight counts of passing worthless checks, one count of theft, one count of forgery, one additional count of passing a worthless check, and one count of reckless endangerment. The Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his continued confinement is illegal. The trial court dismissed the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jason Mize, pled guilty in the Union County Criminal Court to aggravated robbery. In accordance with the plea agreement, the Petitioner was sentenced to an eight year sentence, to run concurrently with "Knox and Anderson County cases." Subsequently, the Petitioner pled guilty to two aggravated robbery charges in the Anderson County Criminal Court and received concurrent eight year sentences on each count. The Anderson County judgment contains the notation, "This sentence may run concurrent with defendant's Knox County sentence if legally possible." The Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Union County conviction is illegal and void because at the time he entered his guilty plea in Union County, he had not yet been convicted in the "Knox and Anderson cases." The Petitioner filed an additional petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Anderson County judgments of conviction are illegal and void because it is not "legally possible" for the Anderson County sentences to be run concurrently with the Knox County sentence. Both petitions were assigned the same docket number in the Morgan County Criminal Court and subsequently were transferred to the Davidson County Circuit Court, where they were assigned the same Davidson County docket number and ultimately summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because his sentences are illegal and the judgments from the Union County Court and the Anderson County Court are void on their faces. After reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This action stems from a divorce case. In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the circuit court applied an inappropriate standard when disposing of a husband’s motion to dismiss his wife’s complaint for divorce for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The wife asserts that, by considering evidence outside the pleadings, the circuit court converted the husband’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and that the circuit court failed to apply the standards under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when considering the husband’s converted motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Further, we decline to award damages to Appellee for frivolous appeal. Likewise, we decline to award Appellant attorney’s fees on appeal.

This is a legal malpractice action. The client filed this lawsuit against her former attorney, asserting legal malpractice for his failure to re-file a lawsuit under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act within one year after he took a voluntary non-suit of the lawsuit. The trial court granted the former attorney's motion for summary judgment, finding the client's evidence in the underlying workers' compensation action insufficient to establish the damages element of the legal malpractice action. We affirm.

The Petitioner, apparently aggrieved that his sentences were too lenient, now seeks to correct the error by the remedy of habeas corpus. Because the error complained of is non-jurisdictional, I would affirm dismissal of the petition.

A Lauderdale County jury convicted the defendant, Darrell Toomes, of aggravated rape and aggravated criminal trespass in connection with the June 23, 2002 home invasion of Mamie Milliman’s residence in Ripley, and the assault of Ms. Milliman. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months and 29 days for aggravated criminal trespass and 23 years as a violent offender for the aggravated rape conviction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aggravated rape conviction and claims that his 23-year sentence for that conviction is excessive. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Dwight K. Pritchard, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that the guilty pleas he entered were not knowing and voluntary because the sentences imposed by the trial court are illegal. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing the petition. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The State appeals the habeas corpus court’s grant of a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by the Petitioner, Saun Hoover. The Petitioner alleged in his petition that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced as a Range I offender but ordered to serve his sentence at one hundred percent.  The habeas corpus court agreed and granted the petition. On appeal, the State contends that the habeas corpus court erred because the Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty and agreed to this hybrid sentence. Finding that there exists reversible error in the judgment of the habeas corpus court, we reverse this case and remand it to the habeas corpus court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Timothy Harris, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner, James L. Moore, has appealed from the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner. The State has filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, for affirmance of the trial court's judgment. Petitioner opposes the motion. After a thorough review of the record, we grant the State's motion and accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Charles Baldwin, pled guilty to two counts of theft over $10,000. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II offender to concurrent sentences of eight years on each count. The trial court ordered nine months in incarceration followed by community corrections. After violating the conditions of community corrections, the trial court increased the appellant's sentence from eight years on each conviction to ten years on each conviction. The trial court ordered the appellant to serve thirty days of the increased sentence in incarceration before being placed back on community corrections. After the appellant violated the conditions of community corrections for a second time, the trial court simply reinstated the appellant to community corrections. Subsequently, a third violation warrant was issued against the appellant. The trial court determined that the appellant violated, for the third time, the conditions of community corrections and re-sentenced the appellant to ten years on each conviction to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court's decision to increase his sentence and order incarceration. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, and evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle. On appeal the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.