APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s petition to register and modify a foreign decree of child support for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.

The petitioner, William L. Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner's sentence for rape of a child is illegal, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is reversed, relief is granted, and the cause is remanded to the Bledsoe County Circuit Court for transfer to the Hamilton County Criminal Court for appropriate remedial action.

The defendant, Candice Workman, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to soliciting the sale of less than one-half gram of cocaine, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced her to one year in the workhouse to be served on probation and fined her $2000.00. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her request for judicial diversion. We affirm the trial court but remand the case for correction of a clerical error on the judgment of conviction.

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 plaintiff alleged that he has a repetitive-stress job-related condition in his right knee diagnosed as degenerative arthritis. Surgery was performed September 18, 1997. After giving notice in July 1999, this action was filed on March 20, 2000. The trial judge concluded that the one-year statute of limitations precluded recovery and granted summary judgment. We affirm.

The plaintiff in this medical battery case argues that the trial court erred in granting the defendant doctor summary judgment and argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether she consented to an unnamed surgical procedure in addition to scheduled procedures named in a hospital consent form. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment upon findings that the case was actually a suit for medical malpractice, rather than medical battery, and that the plaintiff failed to present expert proof that such surgery was not in her best interest. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for trial on the merits upon our finding that the plaintiff's suit states a cause of action for medical battery; and that the consent form signed by the plaintiff authorized the additional surgery only if it was required by an unforseen condition and whether there was an unforseen condition requiring the additional surgery remained a genuine issue of material fact.

Plaintiffs-landowners filed a chancery court complaint seeking to establish ownership of a parcel of real estate which they claimed by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 28-2-110 (failure to pay real estate taxes for twenty years) and also allowed defendants to take a voluntary nonsuit of a counter-claim against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

In this second appeal of this case, the Trial Court had ruled that appellee was entitled to a dwelling house and all improvements on land owned by the Deceased. Appellant appeals this and numerous issues. We affirm.

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 plaintiff complained of wrist pain which was subjectively diagnosed as cumulative trauma. The treating physician found no impairment, as did neither of the first two physicians to whom the plaintiff was referred. The third physician, Dr. Fishbein, relying on subjective complaints, made four years after the plaintiff left her job, found a 5 percent impairment in each arm. We find the evidence preponderates against the judgment.

Appellants are residuary beneficiaries of their father's estate. They challenge the estate's payment of attorney fees and expenses incurred by executrix (the widow of testator and stepmother of Appellants) in unsuccessfully defending against her removal as executrix. Appellants contend that because litigation concerning the removal of their stepmother as executrix was solely for the personal benefit of the executrix and was necessitated by her neglect in administering the estate, the trial court erred as a matter of law in ordering the attorney fees and expenses incurred in defending against the removal petition be paid out of the estate. Appellee, the former executrix, contends that the trial court did not err in exercising its discretion in ordering legal fees to be paid out of estate. Finding that the trial court erred in ordering the expenses paid out of the estate, we reverse and remand.

The pro se petitioner, Thomas Eugene Graham, appeals from the trial court's order denying the petitioner's motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. The states moves the court to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of this court's rules. The motion was properly denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Larry W. Clark, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit.  Accordingly, the motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

In 1908, a fee simple determinable estate in real property was conveyed to the Davidson County Board of Education and its successors ("Metro"). The deed required the property to be used "for school purposes" and to be "devoted exclusively to the cause of education." The deed further provided that the property would revert to the grantors or their heirs should the property be "abandoned" for these purposes. In July 2000, the defendant Metro ceased using the property for classroom instruction and administration but continued to maintain the property, to use it to store surplus food service equipment, and to hold it in reserve for possible use in the indefinite future. In April 2001, heirs of the grantors brought suit against Metro, claiming that the property had been abandoned for school purposes, thereby triggering reversion to them. Concluding that there had been no abandonment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Metro. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that the limitations "for school purposes" and the "cause of education" are satisfied solely by classroom instruction. The Court of Appeals thus not only held that Metro had abandoned the property for these limitations, but also granted summary judgment in favor of the nonmovants, the heirs of the grantors. We vacate the Court of Appeals' holding that "school purposes" and the "cause of education" require classroom instruction alone. We hold that these limitations permit any use that directly benefits and enhances the process of learning and instruction or that directly advances the objective of instructing, training, and rearing. Further, we hold that in a fee simple determinable where the term "abandon" is not otherwise defined, the common law definition of abandonment applies; a complainant therefore must show both intent to abandon for the stated limitations and some external act or omission by which the intent to abandon is effectuated. Whether abandonment has occurred is predominantly a factual determination based upon all the relevant circumstances. In the proceedings below, the parties lacked the benefit of our holding today concerning the legal standard for abandonment; consequently, the factual record relevant to this standard has not been sufficiently developed. We thus vacate both the Court of Appeals' grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We remand this case to the trial court to allow the parties the opportunity to litigate the case in accord with the legal standard adopted herein.

The sole issue in this case is whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the attention of the jury.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals from the order of the Juvenile Court of Benton County terminating his parental rights. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the grounds of failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan and persistence of conditions are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, that the Department of Children’s Services failed to exercise reasonable efforts toward reunification and/or relative placement, and that termination of his parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings, we affirm.

The petitioner, Reginald Thomas, appeals from the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, William Vanblaricum, was convicted by a Franklin County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with probation after thirty days in jail and one hundred hours of community service. The trial court also ordered the defendant to pay a fine of $350.00. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted the applications of the State and Ray Driver d/b/a Driver Bail Bonds pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 in order to determine whether the imposition of sentence upon Stanley Ray Davis, the defendant, effectively terminated Driver's obligations under an appearance bond, and whether Driver is liable for the payment of the fine and costs assessed against the defendant. Although the issue was contested in the Court of Criminal Appeals, in its brief and oral argument to this Court, the State concedes that Driver's obligation to secure the defendant's appearance terminated upon imposition of sentence upon him and entry of judgment. We hold that Driver's obligation terminated upon Davis' sentencing and reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the Criminal Court for Campbell County for further orders in aid of this opinion.

The Petitioner, Eric Amos, 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.

The Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, and misdemeanor resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender to ten years for each felony conviction and six months for the misdemeanor conviction, with the first three felony conviction sentences to be served consecutively and the remaining sentences to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, the Defendant raises four issues: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his two aggravated burglary convictions and one aggravated assault conviction; 2) the trial court erred in failing to allow the defense to impeach the testimony of one of the State's witnesses by means of a prior juvenile conviction; 3) the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004); and 4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Harold Wayne Shaw, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and aggravated kidnapping in 1996. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction, but remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. See State v. Harold Wayne Shaw, No. 01C01-9707-CR-00259, 1998 WL 731573 (Tenn. Crim. App, at Nashville, Oct. 21, 1998), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1999). On remand, the petitioner was resentenced. The petitioner appealed, challenging his sentence for the second time, and this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See State v. Harold Wayne Shaw, No. M1999-01119-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1606585 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 27, 2000), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. 2001). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in various ways. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Algernon Cross, of one count of facilitation of possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance and one count of unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fourteen years. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred on two of its evidentiary rulings; and (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Miqwon Leach, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition seeking 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. Because the Petitioner has failed to allege aground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court

The appellants, Rycine Ellison and Mandrell Christmon, appeal on a certified question of law after their guilty pleas. On appeal, they challenge the trial court's denial of their motions to suppress. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On July 21, 2003, the Grand Jury for Bedford County returned an indictment against the defendant charging him with one count of aggravated rape. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted as charged on October 1, 2003 and sentenced on October 27, 2003, to twenty-two (22) years in the Department of Correction. The defendant now appeals this conviction. He argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a new trial where there is evidence that a juror failed to disclose to the trial court after voir dire that she had had a conversation with the Defendant's brother and knows the brother personally; and (2) that the State violated Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose evidence of the victim's pretrial statement which contained exculpatory information. We conclude that these issues are without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted review in this case to determine whether convenience store employees owe a duty of reasonable care to persons on the roadways when the employees sell gasoline to an obviously intoxicated driver and/or assist the driver in pumping the gasoline into his vehicle. We answer in the affirmative. The plaintiffs in this case were injured when their vehicle was struck by another vehicle driven by an intoxicated driver. The intoxicated driver had purchased gasoline at the defendant convenience store shortly before the accident. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging the defendant was liable for their injuries based on theories of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment in furnishing the driver with gasoline. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se and negligent entrustment claims, but reversed the grant of summary judgment on the negligence claim. The intermediate court held that the defendant's employees were under a duty to act with due care when undertaking the affirmative acts of selling the gasoline to the visibly intoxicated driver and then helping the driver pump the gasoline into his vehicle. After a careful review of the record and relevant authority, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.