APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This Court reversed a judgment of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the court entered judgment for Plaintiff, as authorized by the appellate court, and also, on motion of Plaintiff, awarded attorney fees for the appeal. Defendant-Appellants appeal, asserting that the award of attorney fees was not authorized by the appellate court and, therefore, the trial court did not have authority to award same. Appellants also assert that the award of attorney fees was excessive, and Appellee asserts, in a separate issue, that the award of fees was inadequate. Both parties appeal. We affirm.

The defendant, Teresa C. Graves, was convicted of theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, for which she was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender, to nine years in the Department of Correction. The defendant was granted a delayed right of appeal and raises two issues: (1) whether she should be given a new trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction. The State also appeals and raises two issues: (1) whether the delayed appeal is time barred by the post-conviction statute of limitations; and (2) whether the trial court erred by not sentencing the defendant as a career offender. Following our review, we conclude that (1) the defendant's delayed appeal is not barred by the post-conviction statute of limitations; (2) the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not properly before this court; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction; and (4) the defendant should have been sentenced as a career offender. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for resentencing as a career offender.

We granted review of this interlocutory appeal to address the admissibility of prior acts of physical abuse committed by the defendant against the victim and others under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. The trial court ruled prior to trial that the State's evidence of the defendant's prior acts was admissible in part and inadmissible in part. After granting an interlocutory appeal as requested by both the defendant and the State, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that prior acts of physical abuse committed by a defendant against a victim are per se admissible at trial and that there is no longer a requirement for such a prior act to be relevant to a contested issue. After our review of the record and applicable authority, we hold (1) that the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in granting interlocutory review of the trial court's pretrial ruling on the admissibility of the evidence under Rule 404(b), and (2) that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that prior acts of physical abuse committed by a defendant against a victim are per se admissible at trial. As a result, the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a tenth grade high school student, was attacked while riding the school bus. She was seriously injured by another student using a razor provided by the school as part of the cosmetology curriculum. Plaintiff filed this action against the school system alleging negligence for failure to properly supervise students using dangerous instructional instruments and for violation of the school's zero tolerance policy by permitting students to take razors to and from school, thereby permitting the attacker to have the razor on the school bus where the attack occurred. Following a bench trial, plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $80,000 from which defendant appeals. Finding the school system is not liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, we vacate the judgment and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing the action.

Defendant, Debra Elaine Kirk was indicted on one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of felony murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated child abuse of a child less than six years old, a Class A felony, and criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony, and lesser included offense of felony murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years for the aggravated child abuse conviction and two years for the criminally negligent homicide conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve her sentences concurrently. In this appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the length of sentence imposed for her aggravated child abuse conviction violated the principles set forth in the recent United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004); (2) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress her statement and in allowing Defendant's statement to be introduced into evidence; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of evidence of Defendant's prior drug use; (4) that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Darinka Mileusnic to testify about certain toxicology test results; and (5) that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent. Because we determine that reversible error occurred in the trial court's admission of evidence at trial of Defendant's prior drug use, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

We accepted three questions certified to this Court from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning whether provisions in automobile insurance liability policies that exclude coverage for bodily injury to household or family members of the insured are void as against Tennessee law or public policy. We conclude that such provisions are valid.

This is a post-divorce modification of child support case. The trial court reversed the Divorce Referee and found that the provisions of a Marital Dissolution Agreement unambiguously obligated Father/Appellant to pay child support based upon his stated earning capacity for 1998.  Finding that the Marital Dissolution Agreement, by its plain language, is modifiable, we reverse and remand.

I concur in the result regarding the trial court’s failure to instruct on the lesser offense of Class E evading arrest. In my view, the legislature was empowered to enact the 2001 amendment (effective 2002) to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110. As a result, the defendant’s failure to make a timely objection or request for a special instruction equates to a waiver of the issue on appeal.

The appellant, Anthony Griffin, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and felony evading arrest. After the trial, the trial court set aside the conviction for aggravated assault. The appellant was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a career offender for the Class D felony evading arrest  conviction. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of evading arrest and that he was improperly sentenced as a career offender. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a dispute between an investor and the owners of several failed business ventures. The investor filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County against her erstwhile business colleagues seeking to recover damages for breach of contract and conversion. A jury awarded the investor $86,691.82 in compensatory damages and $40,000.00 in punitive damages. One of the defendants appealed. We have determined that the judgment must be reversed because of inconsistencies in the jury's verdict caused by ambiguous special interrogatories.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the employee 20 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Plaintiff contends he should have received an award for total permanent disability. Judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiff purchased real property at delinquent tax sale and in a declaratory judgment action the Trial Court held the sale included a mobile home located on the land. On appeal, we reverse.

The appellant, Adam Dewey Householder, pled guilty to theft over $10,000, a Class C felony. He received a four year sentence, with nine months to be served in the county jail and the remainder on supervised probation. In addition, he was ordered to pay $26,820.00 in restitution. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion and in ordering a sentence of split confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted the State’s application to appeal in this case pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 to determine, in light of the 1989 Revision of the Criminal Code, whether the longhonored rule that a homicide is presumptively second degree murder should be abandoned. Because our current statutory scheme requires that each element of the charged offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, we hold that the second degree murder presumption is now obsolete. Additionally, we have addressed the sufficiency of the evidence without engaging the presumption, and we conclude that the evidence presented is insufficient to convict the defendant of first degree murder (premeditated) beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is, however, sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant knowingly killed the victim and, thereby, committed second degree murder. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction entered by the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

The parties filed Motions for Summary Judgments. The Trial Court granted defendants' Motion which stated defendant was not a proper party and insurance policy issued to plaintiff did not cover plaintiff's damages. On appeal, we affirm.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with the Tenn. Code Ann. Section §50-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant, employer, argues that the trial court erred in finding that the employee sustained a permanently disabling condition while employed with the appellant and that if she did, the trial court’s award of 25% permanent partial disability to each arm is excessive and is contrary to the weight of the evidence.  The appellee, employee, argues that the trial court’s ruling was correct and should be affirmed. For the reasons discussed below, the panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in all respects.

From the determination by the trial court that the Worker sustained 28% vocational disability apportioned to the right leg, the Employer appeals. The Employer contends that the Worker’s injuries neither arose out of nor occurred in the course of his employment. We conclude otherwise and, thus, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The plaintiff is a former University of Tennessee faculty member. He was dismissed from his position after the defendant corporate officer circulated a letter to government officials accusing him of using numerous deceptions in the procurement of a grant from the United States Department of Energy. The plaintiff's pro se defamation lawsuit named the defendant in both his individual and his corporate capacities. The trial court dismissed the claim against the defendant in his individual capacity under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) and certified the dismissal as final under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 so it could be appealed. We reverse the trial court.

Respondent appeals to set aside an Order of Protection entered by the Trial Court. She argues the evidence does not support the Order. We affirm.

This is an appeal from convictions on a jury verdict of criminal trespass of a habitation, especially aggravated kidnapping, misdemeanor reckless endangerment, and theft of property over $1,000. The Defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days for his misdemeanor trespass and reckless endangerment convictions, two years for his theft conviction, and twenty years as a violent offender for his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. All of the sentences were to be served concurrently for an effective twenty year term of incarceration in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges only his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping, asserting there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for this offense. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Steven Bradley Heflin, was originally indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class C felony. The defendant entered an open plea of guilty to reckless aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class D felony, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102(a)(2)(B), as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant was sentenced to four years, to serve nine months with the remainder on probation. The defendant now appeals the sentence, contending that certain enhancement factors were applied in error and that one mitigating factor was improperly rejected. After review, we remand the cause to modify the sentence to three years, to serve nine months and the remainder on probation.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions ofTennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Worker, Darrell Denney, has appealed the action of the trial court, which dismissed his cause of action, finding that his injury was entirely degenerative in nature, and was not caused by his employment, nor was it aggravated or exacerbated by his employment sufficient to cause the claim to be compensable under the terms of the Worker's Compensation law. Upon our consideration of all of the evidence, we find that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding of an exacerbation of the Worker's underlying condition, to cause the injury to be compensable. Thus, we find that the decision of the trial court should be reversed, that the Worker is entitled to an order holding him harmless frommedical expenses incurred, that he is entitled to an award of temporary total disability fromthe date he left his employer until the date when he returned to work, and that the Worker should be compensated in a sum of 70% vocational disability apportioned to the right arm. We remand the case to the trial court for determination of remaining issues, including commutation of the award, to the extent it has not fully accrued, any offsets which may be applicable, collection of costs, and such further matters which arise in accordance with the terms of this opinion.

The plaintiffs suffered damage to personal property at a location other than as described in a policy of insurance. They failed in their attempt to recover on the policy, and filed suit against the issuing agency, claiming that the agency knew or should have known that they desired coverage not only at their business address but also at their residence. The signed application listed only their service address, and the loss occurred at their residence. Summary judgment was entered for the defendant.

The defendant, Kerry D. Hewson, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court convictions of aggravated assault, for which he received an incarcerative sentence of six years, and reckless endangerment, for which he received a concurrent incarcerative sentence of two years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the lack of a jury instruction on reckless driving as a lesser included offense of reckless endangerment, and the trial court's sentencing determinations. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but modify the sentencing determinations.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Dennis Hodges, of two counts of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court merged the first count into the second count and sentenced the appellant to fifteen years as a Range III, persistent offender. In this appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) that the State made improper closing argument, and (3) that his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.