APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A jury convicted the Defendant, James A. Bates, of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of assault (which the trial court merged into a single count), one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of felony evading arrest, and one count of possession of marijuana. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant on the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective term of thirty-eight years in the Department of Correction. The defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping and the trial court's decision to sentence him as a Range II, multiple offender on those offenses. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a zoning dispute involving billboards. Its posture is not traditional because the Board of Zoning Appeals and the owner of the billboards are in agreement. The Board granted the owner two variance from a zoning ordinance; this action was challenged by the Appellees who claimed that the erection of the billboards adversely affected the value, use, and enjoyment of their property, which vested them with a special interest and entitlement to file a petition for certiorari for a judicial review of the Board's action. The Writ was granted, and a hearing resulted in a finding that the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals was unlawful and capricious.

The Appellant, Eddie Wayne Gordon, appeals the Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1983, Gordon pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1984, Gordon, proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief. For twenty years, Gordon has unsuccessfully sought an evidentiary hearing on his petition. Fundamental fairness dictates that Gordon receive the process that is due him. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is again remanded to the Gibson County Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing upon Gordon’s petition for post-conviction relief.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Bobby Joe Gentry, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a repeat violent offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the indictment; (3) the trial court erred when it charged the jury on the elements of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery and on the culpable mental state; (4) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (5) Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120 (1997), under which the Defendant was sentenced as a violent offender, is unconstitutional; and (6) the trial court erred when it found that the Defendant qualified as a violent offender pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The petitioner, William Berrios, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his post-conviction relief petition in relation to his guilty plea to felony murder for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) the state failed to satisfy a condition of the plea agreement; and (2) his plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

After twenty-one years of marriage and raising two children, now adults, Wife filed for divorce. The trial court granted the divorce and ordered Husband to pay rehabilitative alimony for three years, awarded Wife sole possession of the marital residence and ordered Husband to pay the mortgage as alimony in futuro until Wife remarries, lives with a person of the opposite sex or dies. Husband was also required to pay Wife's attorney fees. Husband appealed. We modify the trial court's order requiring Husband to pay alimony in futuro and reconstitute it as rehabilitative alimony with a three year limit. In all other aspects, we affirm the trial court.

A Franklin County jury convicted the Defendant, Tyrie Brown, of possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, assault and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to thirteen years for the possession conviction and ninety days on both the assault conviction and the resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this appeal in a medical malpractice lawsuit, the Appellants, J.D. Lee and the law firm of Lee, Lee & Lee, contend that the Knox County Circuit Court erred in its award of attorneys' fees. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

The custody of a four-year old boy is the pivotal issue in this case. The Chancellor found that the father was the better qualified to be the primary residential custodian of his son following a recitation of the bizarre conduct of the mother. We affirm.

The petitioner, William Alexander Cocke Stuart, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to theft of property over $10,000 and received a five-year sentence to be served in split confinement. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. The post-conviction court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, dismissed the petition and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings.

By special verdict the jury found that the defendant automobile dealer willfully and knowingly
violated the Consumer Protection Act by selling the Plaintiff a used Lexus automobile that had been wrecked but nevertheless was a certified vehicle under the manufacturer’s guidelines. More than a year later - after the Plaintiff himself wrecked the vehicle and drag-raced it various times - he discovered that some panels had been re-painted, leading to the conclusion that the vehicle had been wrecked before he purchased it. The dealer agreed to repurchase the vehicle which was left in its charge, but the Plaintiff, after consulting counsel, returned to the Defendant’s place of business and removed the vehicle. The jury assessed damages of $4000.00, remitted to $2500.00. The Plaintiff moved for treble damages and attorney fees: the Defendant moved for judgment NOV, because the issue of “willful and knowing” violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is a question of law for the court. The motion for judgment NOV was granted. Plaintiff was awarded $5000.00 attorney fees which he claims is inadequate. We affirm.

Donna Elizabeth Frazier Hill ("Mother") filed a complaint against Stacey G. Hill ("Father") seeking to modify the parties' Permanent Parenting Plan ("the parenting plan"). Father responded and filed a counterclaim. Mother proposed a revised plan that would reduce Father's visitation time and increase his child support obligation. The trial court denied Mother's revised plan with respect to the oldest child, but granted her proposed changes with respect to the other children. The trial court designated Father as the primary residential parent of the oldest child and increased his child support obligation for the younger children; however, the trial court refused to order Mother to pay child support for the oldest child on the ground that Father "has not required the [oldest] child to comply with the original Parenting Plan based on the child's expressed desires." Father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in deviating from the Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines") based upon the ground espoused by the court. We vacate so much of the trial court's order as absolves Mother of any obligation to support the oldest child in the custody of Father.

In this litigation arising out of an automobile accident, Waynell C. Burnette ("the plaintiff") filed a motion asking the trial court to sanction Teddy Sundeen and Elhame Dauti ("the defendants") for a discovery abuse. Acting under the authority of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37.02, the court entered a judgment by default against both defendants and, in the same order, awarded the plaintiff damages of $100,000. The defendants appeal, contending that they were not afforded proper notice of the plaintiff's intention to raise the issue of damages at the hearing on the motion for sanctions. We vacate so much of the trial court's order as awards the plaintiff unliquidated damages of $100,000.

Plaintiffs sued defendant alleging that defendant was negligent, breached its fiduciary duty, and committed fraud and state securities act violations in brokering the sale of municipal bonds to plaintiffs. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue based upon an arbitration agreement plaintiffs entered into with a third party. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and defendant appealed. After reviewing the record, we hold that defendant has failed to prove that it is an intended third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. We affirm.

This is a Will construction case. The decedent's Will provided that her estate would be distributed to her husband. However, the husband predeceased the decedent leaving no issue. The only remaining provision in the Will provided that her estate would be distributed to certain orphan's homes if she and her husband died at the same time. The trial court found it unreasonable to construe the Will to require simultaneous death and distributed the estate to the orphan's homes. We hold that the Will contains a failed condition resulting in intestate succession. We reverse and remand.

The petitioner, Damien Lamar Owes, was found guilty by a Davidson County jury and stands convicted of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. He is serving a 30-year sentence. Aggrieved by his convictions, the petitioner pursued a pro se action for post-conviction relief predicated on the alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following the appointment of counsel and a hearing, the petition was denied. The petitioner appeals and urges that he is entitled to relief. We disagree and affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The petitioner pled guilty to one count of burglary and one count of theft of property between $1,000 and $10,000 on August 21, 2001. He was sentenced to twelve years for each offense to run concurrently to be served at sixty percent as a career offender. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on April 16, 2002. The trial court denied the petition on January 13, 2003.  The petitioner appeals this denial alleging that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

By overruling Gray v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. 1996), a decision released only eight years ago, the majority disregards the principle of stare decisis and undermines the fairness goal of our prior comparative fault decisions. Therefore, I dissent from the majority’s decision in this case. In addition, like the Court of Appeals, I believe the trial court erred by excluding evidence of Larry T. Qualls prior alcohol-related conduct and testimony of two defense witnesses and by commenting upon the credibility of a defense witness. Given the cumulative effect of these errors, Vanderbilt is entitled in my view to a new trial.

The trial court dismissed count two of this indictment charging the violation of the implied consent law and barred the State from arguing in the defendant's trial for DUI that he knew he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. The State appeals. We conclude that the defendant was sufficiently advised of the possible suspension of his driver's license upon his refusal to submit to testing to satisfy the warning requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(a)(2). The defendant need not be advised of the correct and exact term of the suspension in order to satisfy the statutory warning requirements. The defendant was advised that he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the violation of implied consent law. Likewise, we reverse the trial court's limiting the State from arguing that the defendant knew he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. Accordingly, we remand for trial consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, David Clinton York, an inmate in the Clay County Jail, pled guilty to felony escape and was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in determining that he was a persistent offender, in denying alternative sentencing, and in applying the enhancement and mitigating factors. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Upon its own motion, the court hereby withdraws the opinion and vacates the judgment
previously filed on April 26, 2004, in this case. A new opinion and judgment will be filed.

We granted this appeal, in part, to determine whether fault was properly assessed against the patient in this medical malpractice action. We overrule Gray v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. 1996), and hold that fault may not be assessed against a patient in a medical malpractice action in which a patient’s negligent conduct provides only the occasion for the medical attention, care, or treatment which is the basis for the action. We also hold that the additional issues raised by the defendant are without merit. We therefore affirm the trial court’s post-trial ruling that the defendant is 100% at fault and is responsible for the full amount of damages found by the jury. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; Jury Verdict Reinstated
 

JANICE M. HOLDER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the majority’s conclusion that postnuptial agreements are not contrary to public policy. I respectfully dissent, however, from that portion of the majority’s opinion concluding that the agreement at issue in the present case was not supported by adequate consideration.