APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a jury trial, the Defendants, Jack Price and Larry Thomas Cochran, were convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. Defendant Cochran was also convicted of resisting arrest and criminal impersonation, Class B misdemeanors. Both Defendants were sentenced to an effective twenty-five years’ incarceration for their respective convictions. In this appeal as of right, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) both Defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding by the jury of premeditation; (2) Defendant Cochran argues that issuance of a criminal responsibility instruction was in error; (3) Defendant Cochran contends that admission of his co-defendant’s statements against him violated Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968); and (4) both Defendants contend that the trial court erred by submitting enhancement factors to the jury and by allowing the prosecutor to charge those factors, and that their sentences were excessive. Following our review, we affirm the Defendants’ convictions but, because the trial court utilized an unauthorized sentencing procedure, remand the case to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

A Putnam County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Jonathan Andrew Dietz, charging him with rape.  After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve ten years at one-hundred percent in the Department of Correction as a violent offender.  On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court improperly admitted a video of Defendant, according to the State, attempting to rub the victim’s DNA off his genitalia while he was in the police interrogation room and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his rape conviction.  After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Russell Lenox Hamblin, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief following on evidentiary hearing.  Petitioner asserts that his trial counsel and his appellate counsel (separate attorneys) rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.  After a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court terminated the parties’ parental rights based on a finding of severe child abuse and abandonment and determined that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the parties engaged in severe child abuse and that termination of their parental rights is in the children’s best interest. We affirm the trial court.

This is a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff filed a claim with the Division of Claims Administration, as the resident physician alleged to have engaged in negligence was purportedly connected to a University of Tennessee training program at Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The State moved the Commissioner to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a). The Commissioner reluctantly agreed with the State’s position. We hold that the plaintiff complied with section 121(a)’s notice requirement by complying with the claim notice requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402. We further hold that section 121 does not mandate dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with its terms, and that the plaintiff’s failure to provide all the items denoted in section 121(a) does not warrant dismissal with prejudice under the facts of this case. We vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Shanice L. Dycus, challenges the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion for her multiple convictions for various drug-related offenses, including possession of marijuana in excess of one half of a gram with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone.  See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-417, -432.  She contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider all of the required factors in deciding her suitability for judicial diversion and by failing to state on the record how it weighed the relevant factors.  The State counters that possession of marijuana in excess of one half of a gram with intent to sell or deliver in a school zone is a non-divertable offense and, regardless, that the trial court properly denied diversion under the standard announced in State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012).  Following our review, we conclude that the offense for which the Defendant stands convicted is eligible for diversion but that the trial court failed to consider and weigh all of the factors relevant in its decision denying diversion.  Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and remand this case for a resentencing hearing.

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This appeal involves the tolling of the statute of limitations for a breach of contract. The plaintiff architect rendered services to the defendant real estate developer, and the developer failed to pay for the architect’s services. Approximately four years later, the architect recorded a lien against the real property to secure the indebtedness. The developer then promised the architect he would pay the indebtedness if the architect released the lien. The architect released the lien but still was not paid. Approximately four years after that, the architect filed this lawsuit against the developer to collect the debt. The developer asserted that the architect’s claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. After a trial, the trial court held that the statute of limitations was tolled under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, so the architect’s lawsuit was timely filed. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the architect. The developer appeals only on the issue of whether the claim was time-barred. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The sister of the decedent signed several admissions documents on the decedent’s behalf for purposes of admitting her to the defendant health care facility. At that time, the sister also signed an optional arbitration agreement. Several days later, the decedent passed away, and subsequently, the decedent’s beneficiaries brought a wrongful death action against the healthcare facility on her behalf. The healthcare facility moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the sister had authority to bind the decedent to the terms of the arbitration agreement based on several agency theories, as no power of attorney existed. After reviewing the depositions submitted in lieu of live testimony, the trial court determined the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because the sister lacked the legal authority to bind the decedent. Based on a careful review of the evidence, we affirm.

During the pendency of this divorce action, the trial court found Husband in criminal contempt for failing to pay pendente lite support on five occasions and sentenced Husband to ten days per count for a total sentence of fifty days. Husband was not booked or jailed for contempt but he was detained for two hours during the court’s lunch recess. During the recess, Husband’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal. Husband was returned to the courtroom thereafter, and he and his counsel participated in the divorce hearing, which commenced after lunch. Following the conclusion of a short divorce hearing, the court took notice of the appeal from the contempt action and granted a stay of the sentence pending this appeal; Husband was then released. This appeal followed. We have concluded that the evidence upon which the five counts of criminal contempt were based was inadmissible and there is no other evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Husband had the ability to pay the support when it was due. Therefore, we reverse the finding of five counts of criminal contempt.

A Knox County jury found appellants Robert Hurst and Destiny Hurst guilty of four counts of felony murder; one count of second degree murder as a lesser-included offense of felony murder; one count of first degree premeditated murder; and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. They were found not guilty of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and not guilty of all counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed life sentences upon both appellants for the murder conviction, a concurrent eighteen-year sentence for appellant Robert Hurst’s especially aggravated robbery conviction, and a consecutive thirty-five-year sentence for appellant Destiny Hurst’s especially aggravated robbery conviction. In this appeal, appellants jointly challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence underlying the felony murder convictions and the trial court’s failure to poll the jury as to a witness’s status as an accomplice. Appellant Robert Hurst argues that there was a conflict surrounding the manner in which authorities matched his fingerprint to the bloody fingerprint found at the scene. Appellant Destiny Hurst claims that the State committed a Brady violation; that the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of her other crimes, wrongs, or acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); and that the trial court erred in characterizing her as a professional criminal, sentencing her at the top of her range, and imposing consecutive sentences. Based on our review of the record as a whole, we affirm both appellants’ convictions and sentences. However, for each appellant, we remand this cause for entry of a single judgment form reflecting merger of all counts of murder and a single judgment form reflecting merger of both counts of especially aggravated robbery. Appellant Destiny Hurst’s judgment for especially aggravated robbery should note consecutive sentence alignment of her thirty-five-year sentence with her life sentence for murder. We also note, with respect to appellant Destiny Hurst, that the record does not contain a judgment form for Count 12, knowingly employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony after having been previously convicted of the same. Thus, we order the criminal court to supplement the record with a judgment form reflecting the jury’s verdict of not guilty on this count of the indictment.

This is a termination of parental rights case in which Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father to the Child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of Father’s parental rights on the statutory ground of abandonment and that termination of his rights was in the Child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

In this malicious prosecution action, the jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages and punitive damages. The trial court affirmed the punitive damages award; the court suggested a remittitur of the compensatory damages award, which the plaintiff accepted under protest. The defendant appeals the finding of liability, the award of damages, the admission of evidence, and the procedure followed by the court in affirming the punitive damages award; the plaintiff appeals the remittitur of the compensatory damages award. Finding that the court erred when it failed to follow the appropriate procedures in affirming the punitive damages award, we vacate the award and remand the case for further proceedings; in all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is the second appeal in this post-divorce matter. Wife, Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani (“Wife”), was granted a divorce from husband, Masoud Bajestani (“Husband”), on April 16, 2009. Following the first appeal to this Court, the case was remanded to the trial court. Various petitions and motions were filed by the parties, seeking modification of the trial court’s valuation of marital property, modification of child support, a lien on husband’s assets to secure his child support and alimony obligations, a finding of contempt, and an award of attorney’s fees. The trial court, inter alia, modified Husband’s child support obligation due to his reduced income, found Husband in contempt for his late payments of child support and alimony, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees. Both parties appeal the trial court’s order. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Commissioner of Revenue assessed Company a sales and use tax for its sale of a wide area network (“WAN”) service during the period 1998 through 2003 on the basis that the service was a “telecommunication service” as that term is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6102(a)(32) (2003). Company denied its WAN constituted a taxable telecommunication service because users were limited to accessing information on geographically remote computers; the WAN did not allow its users to communicate with one another. Following motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded the WAN service was a taxable telecommunication service. Company appealed, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment. The primary purpose of the WAN was to enable a company’s authorized users to access information related to the company’s business,not to provide communication between users. The fact that Company itself did not provide information does not alter the result.

Kay F. Fritz (“Plaintiff”) sued CVS Corporation d/b/a CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant had improperly filled a prescription for Plaintiff causing Plaintiff damages. Defendant filed a motion for involuntary dismissal or in the alternative for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendant summary judgment after finding that Plaintiff was unable to prove an essential element of her claim, i.e., causation. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We affirm.

Aubrey Tremaine Eisom (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life imprisonment for each felony murder conviction and to forty years’ incarceration for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, all to run consecutively. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s decision denying relief.

The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Jasmine W. (“Mother”) to the minor child Sahara W. (“the Child”). A new permanency plan was approved following the filing of the petition. After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence had been proven that grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(2) and (g)(3), and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that she was not properly notified of being at risk of losing her parental rights because the new permanency plan was approved after the filing of the petition. We hold that Mother sufficiently was put on notice that her parental rights were subject to being terminated at trial. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety.

The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua D. Jones, appeals from the Dickson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation.  The Appellant previously entered a guilty plea to initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-435 and was sentenced to six years in the Department of Correction. The sentence was suspended, and the Appellant was placed on Community Corrections and then transferred to the drug court program.  The Appellant was terminated from the drug court program, and the trial court subsequently revoked the Appellant’s probation and ordered that he serve his original six-year sentence.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Christy D. Naillon (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated child abuse. As part of her plea agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced her to fifteen years’ incarceration. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that her indictment was deficient, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that her guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Jeffrey King (“Defendant J. King”) entered conditional guilty pleas in Rutherford County to one count of conspiracy to sell over seventy pounds of marijuana and one count of possessing over seventy pounds of marijuana; to several counts of felony marijuana offenses and several counts of money-laundering offenses in Davidson County; and to several counts of felony marijuana offenses, several counts of money-laundering offenses, and one count of a felony firearm offense in Sumner County.  Kasey King (“Defendant K. King”) (collectively “the Defendants”) entered conditional guilty pleas in Davidson County to two counts of felony marijuana offenses and two counts of money-laundering offenses; and to one count of a felony firearm offense and two counts of felony marijuana offenses in Sumner County.  These conditional guilty pleas were entered after the trial courts denied the Defendants’ motions to suppress evidence gleaned from wiretaps on several telephones.  Each of the Defendants reserved certified questions of law regarding the legality of the wiretaps and timely appealed.  This Court ordered that the appeals be consolidated.  We now consider the Defendants’ certified questions of law and hold that the trial courts did not err in denying the Defendants’ motions to suppress.  Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to no relief from their pleas of guilt.  Therefore, we affirm the trial courts’ judgments and the Defendants’ convictions.

Wife signed a marital dissolution agreement that was incorporated into a final divorce decree. After the final decree was entered, wife sought relief from the decree based on assertions that she was entitled to a greater portion of a settlement received by her husband prior to the divorce and that, contrary to the parties’ agreement, there was equity in the marital home. The trial court denied wife’s motion to alter or amend, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision.

This appeal concerns a dispute over the modification of a permanent parenting plan. Leslie Kay Johnson (“Mother”) and Darren Tracy Johnson (“Father”) were divorced in the Chancery Court for Monroe County (“the Trial Court”). A permanent parenting plan was entered regarding the parties’ minor child (“the Child”). Mother was designated as the primary residential parent with the parties to have equal parenting time with the Child. Mother later filed an emergency petition for custody and contempt, alleging that the Child had severe anxiety about going to see Father. Father filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because Mother failed to file a proposed parenting plan contemporaneously with her petition as required by statute, Mother’s petition should be dismissed. Both Mother and Father ultimately filed proposed parenting plans with Father’s being submitted with his own Petition for Change in Co-Parenting Time. The Trial Court denied Father’s motion to dismiss. After a hearing on the competing petitions, the Trial Court modified the parenting plan to grant Mother more time with the Child. Father appeals. We hold that the Trial Court had jurisdiction to decide Mother’s petition and that the Trial Court did not err in modifying the existing parenting plan. We affirm the Trial Court.

 Petitioner, Tommy Lee Page, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of sale of a controlled substance in a Drug Free School Zone.  He entered a guilty plea to the reduced charge of the sale of a controlled substance weighing less than .5 grams.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years as a Range II, multiple offender.  Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and that he entered his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily.  After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove any of his allegations that counsel’s representation was ineffective and we conclude that his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.  Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Roy Len Rogers, was convicted by a Rhea County jury of first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, and reckless endangerment. Subsequently, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the first degree murder conviction and imposed a mandatory life sentence for that conviction and a concurrent term of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the reckless endangerment conviction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during the search of his home; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the verdicts were inconsistent; (3) that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the Defendant to play a 911 tape; (4) that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant photographs of tires of the Defendant’s vehicle; (5) that the State withheld Brady material, specifically the statement of a potential suspect; and (6) that a juror evidenced bias by her actions and body language prior to deliberations. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we determine that there is no reversible error in the judgments of the trial court and affirm.