APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Shannon Wade Jacobs, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his 2000 jury conviction of second degree murder in the Giles County Circuit Court, for which he received a sentence of 23 years in the Department of Correction. After the post-conviction court appointed counsel for the petitioner and conducted an evidentiary hearing, the court dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals. Upon our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Appellant, James O. Martin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Martin is currently serving a twenty-two year sentence as a result of his jury conviction for aggravated arson. On appeal, Martin argues that the trial court erred "by failing to grant post-conviction relief." Specifically, he argues that his conviction was unlawfully obtained as a result of juror misconduct and bias of the juror at his trial. After review of the record, the denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed.

This case is about subject matter jurisdiction. A professor employed by the University of Memphis filed a lawsuit in chancery court against the University, alleging claims under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and failure to execute a settlement agreement on his discrimination claims. The University filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear contract claims against an agency of the State of Tennessee. The trial court granted the motion, finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint. We affirm in part and reverse and remand, finding that the chancery court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I would hold that the trial court erred in not setting aside the entry of the default judgment against Mr. Orten. In my judgment the evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Orten did not intentionally fail to appear at the second Trial Management Conference, but simply forgot to appear. Entry of a default judgment against Mr. Orten is too drastic a measure in this case.

Mold-Tech USA, LLC ("the Supplier") brought this action against Holley Performance Products, Inc. ("the Manufacturer") for breach of contract, seeking to recover the cost of component parts purchased by the Supplier in connection with its contract with the Manufacturer. Following a bench trial, the court found that the Manufacturer had breached the contract, and the court awarded the Supplier $79,436.87 in damages. In addition, the court awarded the Supplier prejudgment interest at the rate of 4% per annum. The Manufacturer appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding for the Supplier because the Supplier failed to comply with the pertinent provisions of the Tennessee version of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Manufacturer also contends that the Supplier is not entitled to prejudgment interest. We affirm.

This case involves the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff telephone customer paid a fee to the defendant telephone company to block calls to 900 numbers from being made from her phone.  Despite this, charges for 900 calls continued to appear on the customer’s bill. The customer disputed this, and the telephone company cut off her telephone service. The customer filed a claim against the telephone company in general sessions court for breach of contract and the telephone company filed a counterclaim for the unpaid charges for the 900 number calls. The general sessions court ruled in favor of the telephone company, and the customer appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ruled in favor of the customer. The customer then filed a separate lawsuit against the telephone company in chancery court, seeking injunctive relief to require the telephone company to reinstate her telephone service. The telephone company answered, and later sought to amend its answer to plead the defense of res judicata. The chancery court refused to allow amendment of the answer to assert the defense. The chancery court then ruled in favor of the telephone customer. The telephone company appeals, asserting that the chancery court erred in not allowing amendment of its answer to assert the defense of res judicata. We affirm, finding that the principle of res judicata did not apply and the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in declining to permit amendment of the answer.

The petitioner, James Rimmer, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the issues and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Michael E. Ingle and his wife, Melissa R. Ingle ("the plaintiffs"), purchased a house from Aaron Lilly Construction, LLC ("the defendant"). The defendant had constructed the residence and the plaintiffs were the initial purchasers. The plaintiffs began to experience problems with their home and filed suit against the defendant on several theories, including a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"). The trial court, following a bench trial, found that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, but not under the TCPA. The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. They also claim that the evidence preponderates against the amount of damages found by the trial court. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, challenge the trial court's ruling with respect to their claim under the TCPA. We affirm.

This is a divorce case. The parties were declared divorced in February 2003. The divorce decree reserved issues regarding their minor child, property valuation and distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees. After a hearing on the reserved issues, the trial court granted the wife alimony and designated her the primary residential parent of their child, set child support, and distributed the marital property. The husband appealed the trial court’s decision on all of the reserved issues. We affirm the trial court’s decision, with modification on the issue of the husband’s residential parenting time.

John and Christina Dolle ("Plaintiffs") entered into a contract with Fisher Builders, Inc., for the construction of a single family residence. Plaintiffs eventually obtained a judgment against Fisher Builders, Inc., for breach of contract and breach of warranty. Plaintiffs' judgment against Fishers Builders, Inc. was for $61,102, plus interest and costs. After the judgment against Fisher Builders, Inc., became final, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Marvin Fisher, the president, secretary, sole director, and sole stockholder of Fisher Builders, Inc. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Fisher Builders, Inc., was a sham corporation, the corporate veil should be pierced, and Fisher should be held personally liable for the judgment against his corporation. The Trial Court agreed and entered a judgment against Fisher personally. We affirm.

The defendant, Thomas Allen Franks, II, was convicted of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, evading arrest, and resisting arrest. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of ten years for aggravated burglary and six years for aggravated assault. There were concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days each for misdemeanor evading arrest and resisting arrest. The effective sentence is, therefore, sixteen years. In this appeal as of right, the single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by declining to grant a continuance or other relief when the state filed notice of its intent to use impeaching convictions just before the beginning of the trial. The judgments are affirmed.

Rabia Kafozi and Audry C. Kafozi ("Plaintiffs") signed an installment sales contract to purchase real property from Windward Cove, LLC ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs made some, but not all of the payments as scheduled. Defendant declared a default and then sold the real property to another party. Plaintiffs sued Defendant seeking, among other things, either specific performance or the return of payments made by them. The case was tried and the Trial Court held, inter alia, that the installment sales contract did not set a due date and, therefore, Plaintiffs never were in default. Defendant appeals claiming the Trial Court erred in interpreting the installment sales contract. We reverse, and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.

We accepted review of this cause under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11, in order to address a question properly preserved and certified pursuant to the provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 37(b)(2)(i). The question, as certified, is: Whether the consent given to search the defendant's motel room is consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee? Because we hold that during the course of a lawful traffic stop the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of her motel room, we find the trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that search. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The plaintiff, an unlicensed home improvement contractor, entered into an agreement with the defendant/homeowner to make certain improvements to her existing home. Shortly after the plaintiff left the job site, the defendant/homeowner began to experience several problems associated with the plaintiff’s work. The defendant/homeowner paid to have the defects repaired and/or completed. The plaintiff filed a petition against the defendant/homeowner to enforce a materialman’s lien. The defendant/homeowner filed a counter-complaint seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, fraud, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the chancellor held that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to constructive fraud, thereby voiding the contract; the plaintiff was only entitled to recover the cost of his labor and materials under quantum meruit; and the defendant/homeowner was entitled to damages, attorney’s fees, and discretionary costs. The plaintiff appealed to this Court to contest the chancellor’s inclusion of certain costs in the damage award, the limitation of his quantum meruit recovery, the finding of constructive fraud, and the award of attorney’s fees to the defendant/homeowner. The defendant/homeowner appealed the chancellor’s exclusion of certain costs from the damage award and the method used by the chancellor in calculating the damages. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

Carol Bracken Orten (“Wife”) sued Thaddeus Charles Orten (“Husband”) for a divorce. During the course of discovery, Husband refused to provide certain financial information as he felt the information to be irrelevant. After Husband failed to appear without explanation at the second Trial Management Conference, the Trial Court entered a default judgment against Husband as a sanction for his actions. Husband’s attorney immediately withdrew from the case and the Trial Court then proceeded to distribute the marital property and award Wife alimony and child support based solely on Wife’s uncontested testimony. Husband secured new counsel and filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The Trial Court denied Husband’s motion and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The Appellant, Cortez D. Hubbard, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court which resulted in the imposition of an effective eight-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Hubbard challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Gregory Mullins, was convicted of two counts of violating the vehicle registration law, two counts of driving on a suspended license, two counts of criminal impersonation, one count of speeding, one count of misdemeanor evading arrest, and one count of felony evading arrest. The trial court imposed a Range III, career offender sentence of six years for the felony evading arrest offense; concurrent terms of forty-five days for each of the driving on a suspended license offenses; eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor evading arrest offense; and forty-five days for each of the criminal impersonation offenses. In addition, the defendant was fined $50 for each of the vehicle registration offenses; $50 for the speeding offense; $500 for each of the driving on a suspended license offenses; $3,000 for the felony evading arrest offense;  $2,500 for the misdemeanor evading arrest offense; $500 for one of the impersonation offenses; and $250 for the remaining impersonation offense. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is not sufficient to support several of his convictions and that the dual convictions for misdemeanor evading arrest and felony evading arrest violate principles of double jeopardy. Because the convictions for felony and misdemeanor evading arrest violate the principles of double jeopardy, the conviction for misdemeanor evading arrest must be merged into the conviction for felony evading arrest. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I adhere to my longstanding view that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard and a “clear and convincing evidence” standard are incompatible with each other and cannot be reconciled either in the trial court or in appellate courts. The effort to make these standards compatible, as asserted in Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001), and its progeny are in my view incorrect for reasons stated at length in Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger, 56 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) and In re Z.J.S. and M.J.P., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3-JV, filed June 3, 2003 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003-Cain, concurring).

Mother appeals the Dickson County Juvenile Court’s Order terminating her parental rights to three children, C.L.M., M.M.M., and S.D.M. Father does not challenge the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of a biological mother who is serving a lengthy prison sentence. Following years of drug abuse, criminal conduct, periodic incarceration, and inconsistent attention to the needs of her two children, the mother pled guilty to charges of especially aggravated kidnaping and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of fifteen and twelve years in prison. Following her incarceration, the fathers of both children filed petitions to terminate her parental rights. The juvenile court consolidated these petitions with the mother’s petition for visitation and appointed guardians ad litem for the children. The guardians ad litem later filed a joint petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights, and the fathers voluntarily dismissed their termination petitions. Following a bench trial, the juvenile court entered orders terminating the mother’s parental rights to both children on three grounds. The mother has appealed.  We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support terminating the mother’s parental rights on two of the three grounds relied upon by the court and to support the court’s conclusion that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

The Cumberland County Bank (“the bank”) filed an unlawful detainer action in general sessions court against Dee Downs Eastman. The bank sought to obtain possession of real property conveyed to it following the bank’s foreclosure of deeds of trust securing promissory notes executed by Ms. Eastman. The general sessions court entered judgment for possession “for which a Writ of Possession may issue.” Ms. Eastman appealed to the trial court and, along with the Dee Downs Eastman Revocable Trust (“the trust”), filed in that court a counterclaim that essentially challenged the validity of the foreclosure sale by which the bank acquired its title to the subject property. The trial court granted the bank summary judgment as to all issues. Ms. Eastman and the trust appeal.  We affirm.

The Robertson County Circuit Court convicted the defendant, Larry Dale Driver, of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with probation following 180 days in jail. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by denying him judicial diversion. We affirm the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Lawrence Ralph, Sr., was convicted of failure to display a driver's license, a Class C misdemeanor; resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor; and simple possession of a Schedule III controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of thirty days for his failure to display a driver's license conviction, six months for his resisting arrest conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for his simple possession conviction, for an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The trial court suspended all but 120 days of Defendant's effective sentence, and placed Defendant on probation. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for simple possession. On appeal, Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for resisting arrest and failure to display a driver's license; and (3) the trial court erred in determining the percentage of Defendant's effective sentence which must be served in confinement. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Samuel T. Cravens, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of two counts of vehicular assault and one count of assault. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence fails to support the convictions because the witness testimony upon which the convictions are based is inherently impossible and irreconcilable with the physical evidence and because the state failed to prove that the defendant's intoxication was the proximate cause of the victims' injuries. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we find sufficient evidence to support the convictions and, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgments.

The defendant, John Dillihunt, was convicted of delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, a Class B felony, for which he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to eight years in the Department of Correction to be served at 100% and fined $7500. On appeal, although the defendant raises four issues, we believe they can be condensed into one: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment.