APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This interlocutory appeal involves a plaintiff who was injured while helping the contractor building his house cut a board. The sole issue concerns whether the contractor is equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to the plaintiff's claims. The trial court determined that, by paying the plaintiff $10,000 for his medical expenses, the contractor's insurance company induced the plaintiff to believe the matter would be settled amicably without the necessity of a lawsuit. Thus, the trial court denied the contractor's motion for summary judgment, but granted the contractor an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur with the trial court that an interlocutory appeal will prevent needless, expensive and protracted litigation. We also agree that summary judgment is not appropriate because genuine issues of material fact exist. However, the trier of fact should decide whether the $10,000 payment induced the plaintiff to believe that the matter would be settled amicably, and, therefore, we vacate the trial court's order to the extent it makes specific findings with regard to the plaintiff's beliefs stemming from the $10,000 payment.

The issue presented in this case is whether a covenant not to compete is enforceable between a physician and his former employer, a private medical clinic. The trial court concluded that the noncompete agreement was enforceable and enjoined the physician from establishing a medical practice at a location within the restricted area. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that the non-compete agreement was enforceable, but reversed the grant of the temporary injunction and remanded the case to the trial court for further determinations with respect to the agreement’s “buyout” provision. After a thorough review of the issues presented, including considerations of public policy, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment. We hold that except for those specifically prescribed by statute, physicians’ covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void.

The Defendant, Roland R. Smith, was convicted by a jury of nine counts of statutory rape and three counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years on each of the statutory rape convictions and eleven years on each of the sexual exploitation convictions. The sentences were ordered to be served in such fashion as to result in an effective term of seventeen years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: 1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support certain of his convictions of statutory rape; 2) whether certain of the Defendant's convictions must be reversed under the doctrine of election of offenses; 3) whether certain of the Defendant's convictions violate principles of double jeopardy; 4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to sever some of the offenses; and 5) whether the Defendant's sentence is excessive. We reverse and remand for retrial the Defendant's convictions of statutory rape arising out of Counts Four, Five, Eight and Nine. We reverse and dismiss the Defendant's conviction of statutory rape arising out of Count Six. The Defendant's effective sentence is thereby modified to fifteen years. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

We granted this appeal to determine the constitutionality of a Knoxville city ordinance regulating the location of adult businesses. The chancery court upheld the ordinance and enjoined operation of the defendant’s video store after finding that it fit the definition of an adult bookstore and was located within 1,000 feet of prohibited areas and therefore was operating in violation of the ordinance. The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the ordinance’s definition of adult bookstores is unconstitutionally vague. Because we have also determined that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals but on the separate grounds set forth herein. We remand to the trial court for an assessment of the amount of damages incurred by the defendant as a   result of the chancery court’s injunction.

Tim Lewallen and Marietta Lewallen ("Plaintiffs") sued J.C. York, Jr. ("Defendant") claiming, in part, that Defendant was interfering with their lawful right to use an easement over Defendant's land. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order holding, inter alia, "[t]hat an easement exists which runs with the land and burdens the defendant's property . . . ," and that Plaintiffs "have the use and benefit of the aforementioned easement for the purpose of ingress and egress." Defendant appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in holding that Plaintiffs have an easement over Defendant's land, and also that the Trial Court erred in considering parol evidence regarding the easement. We affirm.

We granted review of this interlocutory appeal to determine whether the defendant was sufficiently advised of the consequences of refusing to take a breath-alcohol test. The arresting officer informed the defendant that his license would be suspended for one year if he refused the test, but under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(a) (2000) in effect at the time, the penalty was two years. The trial court held that the defendant was not sufficiently advised of the consequences and barred the State from seeking any suspension of the defendant's driver's license. The trial court also barred the State from arguing to the jury on the DUI charge that the defendant had refused the breath test. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant was adequately advised of the consequences for refusing the test. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals on the separate grounds set forth herein. We hold that although the State may request suspension of Collins' license, the State may not seek a suspension of longer than one year because Collins was incorrectly advised of the consequences of refusing to take the test.

The Defendant, James Erskin McCullough, pled guilty to various offenses, and, while he was on probation for these convictions, a probation violation report was filed, stating that the Defendant failed to report to his probation officer and was arrested for theft. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation, and it ordered that the Defendant serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to revoke the Defendant's probation, and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

This is a negligent construction case involving a statute of repose. The defendant developer bought the residential lot in question in 1992. The developer hired the defendant subcontractor to remove trees and perform the grading work necessary to make the lot suitable for the construction of a house. In 1993, the developer sold the lot to the defendant construction company, which constructed a house on the lot. In 1994, the construction company sold the lot and the house to purchasers not party to this litigation. In 1997, the purchasers sold the house to the plaintiffs in this case. A few weeks after the plaintiffs moved into the house, they noticed cracks in the walls and abnormal settling of the house. In April 2000, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the construction company and the subcontractor for negligent construction of the house and negligent grading of the lot. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on the four-year statute of repose set out in T.C.A. § 28-3-202. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on that statute. The plaintiffs now appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment only as to the defendant subcontractor. We affirm.
 

The petitioner, Kennath Henderson, appeals as of right from the May 21, 2003 judgment of the Fayette County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner entered guilty pleas to first degree premeditated murder, two (2) counts of especially aggravated
kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and felonious escape. The petitioner waived his right to jury sentencing. After a capital sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the death sentence for the murder count and an effective sentence of twenty-three (23) years in prison for the noncapital offenses. The petitioner’s convictions and sentences, including the sentence of death, were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Henderson, 24 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 934 (2000). A pro se petition for post-conviction relief was filed on February 12, 2001, which was followed by an amended petition on November 30, 2001. An evidentiary hearing was held on April 28-29, 2003, and, on May 21, 2003, the trial court denied relief and dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals, presenting for our review the following claims: (1) the trial judge erred in failing to recuse himself at both the trial and the post-conviction hearings; (2) the post-conviction court’s findings were clearly erroneous; (3) trial counsel was ineffective; (4) appellate counsel was ineffective; (5) the post-conviction court erred in prohibiting a witness from testifying; and (6) the imposition of the death penalty is unconstitutional. After a careful and laborious review of the record, this Court concludes that there is no error requiring reversal. Accordingly, the order of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

The defendant, David Wayne Fountain, appeals from the Rhea County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation. Because the record supports the revocation of probation, we affirm the revocation; however, to avoid a length of confinement that exceeds the defendant’s release eligibility as a Range I offender, we modify the post-revocation terms of the manner of service of the defendant’s two-year sentence.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, challenging: (1) the jury instruction given on the mens rea term "knowingly," and (2) the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser included offenses of aggravated assault and assault. Upon review, we conclude that the issues are waived for failure to provide a completed record on appeal. Furthermore, notwithstanding waiver, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Appellant, Augustine John Lopez, III, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree felony murder and theft of property over $1000 and subsequently received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and five years for the respective convictions. On appeal, Lopez raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions: (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony by a police officer concerning fingerprint evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding the hearsay statements of a witness which indicated her possible involvement in the murder; and (4) whether the trial court's sequential jury instruction was error. After review of the record, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

The Appellant, Kenneth Hayes, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Davidson County Criminal Court. In 1997, Hayes pled guilty to felony possession of cocaine and was sentenced to a term of eight years with service of one year in confinement followed by supervised probation. In 2004, a probation violation warrant was issued alleging that Hayes violated probation by possessing cocaine. At the revocation hearing, Hayes sought suppression of the cocaine upon grounds that it was illegally seized. The trial court found that the police search was valid and revoked Hayes' suspended sentence. After review, we conclude that the cocaine was illegally seized. Notwithstanding, we further conclude that in the absence of police harassment or that the evidence was obtained in a particularly offensive manner, the exclusionary rule is not applicable to probation revocation proceedings. Accordingly, the order of revocation is affirmed.

The Defendant, Jason Ray Taylor, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, burglary, two counts of vandalism and three counts of forgery. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief; this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to the provisions of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility ("the Board") appeals from an order of the Chancery Court for Knox County imposing the sanction of public censure upon James L. Milligan, Jr., Esq. ("Milligan"). The Board contends that the Chancery Court erred in concluding that: (1) Milligan did not misappropriate funds; (2) Milligan's use of a client's funds for personal purposes was not a serious violation; and (3) public censure is the appropriate sanction. Because we conclude that Milligan did misappropriate funds and did otherwise conduct himself in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct, as will be hereinafter detailed, we have determined that suspension for a period of two years is appropriate.

This is a collection action. The defendant corporation owned an automotive repair shop. In order to obtain a line of credit to purchase automobile parts from the plaintiff auto parts supply company, the sole shareholder of the defendant corporation signed a personal guaranty. After the corporation had incurred about $20,000 on its line of credit, the plaintiff supply  company filed this lawsuit against the corporation and the individual shareholder to recover that debt. The shareholder argued that, before the debt was incurred, he sold the business to a third party and canceled his personal guaranty on the debt of the corporation. The trial court rejected that argument and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against both the corporation and the shareholder. The shareholder now appeals. We affirm, concluding that holding the shareholder liable for the debt of the corporation is appropriate under these circumstances, regardless of  whether his personal guaranty remained intact.

The petitioner, Archie L. Miller, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his three 2002 convictions of selling cocaine. The post-conviction court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition, and the court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and denied post-conviction relief. We affirm the action of the post-conviction court.

A Wilson County jury convicted the defendant, Lorenzo Malone, for first degree felony murder under the theory of criminal responsibility. The trial court sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) refusing to strike a potential juror for cause; (2) admitting photographs of the victim and a videotape into evidence; and (3) failing to grant a mistrial based upon impropriety in the State's closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Darrell Toomes, of robbery, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to convict him as the perpetrator, (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence relating to a photograph array and a subsequent in-court identification of him, and (3) that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Norris Ray, was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a handgun; one count of first degree felony murder; and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole on the felony murder conviction. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to forty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and as a Range II, multiple offender, to four years for the felony possession of a handgun conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant’s sentences to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of life plus forty-four years. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator of the offenses; (2) that the trial court erred by not allowing the impeachment of the testimony of the victim of especially aggravated kidnapping with evidence of the victim’s misdemeanor drug convictions; and (3) that the trial court erred in determining the length of Defendant’s sentences and in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

We granted this appeal to determine whether habeas corpus relief is available when: (1) the trial court imposed concurrent sentences for two offenses committed by the petitioner while on parole; and (2) the trial court failed to order these new sentences to be served consecutively to the remaining sentence for the paroled offense. We conclude that the sentences are not illegal under either claim and that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s judgment dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioner appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Robert Howell, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the
State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.