APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant, Bobby Stanley George, was indicted by a Davidson County grand jury for attempted especially aggravated kidnapping; driving while under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), fourth offense; and driving with a revoked license. At trial, he was found guilty of all counts. The trial court sentenced him to eleven years, two years, and six months, respectively, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, appellant argues in this appeal that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for attempted especially aggravated kidnapping; (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on involuntary intoxication; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him to eleven years for attempted especially aggravated kidnapping. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Dustin Price, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, two counts of reckless endangerment, and three counts of attempted first degree murder. The two first degree murder convictions were merged, and the defendant received an effective sentence of life plus 40 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to sever offenses; (2) admitting jail house recordings of his telephone conversations with a Davidson County Jail inmate; (3) allowing the prior testimony of a witness under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(26); and (4) ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Although I agree with most of the conclusions set forth in the majority opinion, including that the appellant’s arrest created a break in the events, I respectfully disagree that the evidence is insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction in count 2 for failing to sign the TBI registration form. Therefore, I would affirm both of the appellant’s convictions

The Petitioner, Derek Lee White, pled guilty to second degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery, with an agreed effective sentence of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner timely filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that his attorney failed to: (1) meet with him; (2) fully utilize exculpatory evidence; and (3) hire a private investigator to assist in the defense. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

On June 3, 2005, Petitioner, Ruben Pimentel, pled guilty to first degree murder and two counts of aggravated arson. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief almost four years later on March 9, 2009. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition because it was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations of one year. On appeal, a panel of this court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for the appointment of counsel and for a hearing to determine if due process concerns tolled the statute of limitations. See Ruben Pimentel v. State, No. M2009-00668-CCA-R3-PC, 2010 WL 271160 at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 22, 2010). In addition, this court instructed the trial court to determine whether the filing of the petition in 2009 was within the reasonable opportunity allowed by due process tolling of the statute of limitations if due process concerns required a reasonable tolling of the statute of limitations. Id. Upon remand, counsel was appointed, a hearing was held, and the trial court again dismissed the petition, from which order Petitioner appeals pro se, after waiving his right to counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

In 2011, the Petitioner, Archie T. Wilson, pled guilty to attempted aggravated rape and attempted aggravated kidnapping, and the trial court sentenced him to a twenty-year effective sentence. The trial court also ordered that the Petitioner register as a sex offender and be placed on community supervision for life. The Petitioner filed a petition for post conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the post-conviction court did not err when it dismissed the petition. The post-conviction court’s judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

The defendant, James Michael Naive, appeals his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of first degree murder, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress both the statement he made to police and his bank records, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred by admitting certain witness testimony and by permitting a witness for the State to remain in the courtroom prior to his testimony. In addition, the defendant claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct by impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to the defense during closing argument. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a parental termination case. The appellant mother bore the child at issue when she was only 13 years old. After the mother turned 18, she was turned out of her mother’s home and moved often. At that point, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services intervened and the child was eventually placed in foster care. Months later, DCS filed the instant petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. In the ensuing bench trial, the proof showed that, during an interim between nonconsecutive trial days, the child was removed from his long-term foster placement and placed with a new foster family. The trial court found several grounds for termination and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother now appeals only the best interest determination. We reverse, on the basis that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

An employee sustained an injury to his back in the course of his employment on January 1, 2010. After a period of conservative treatment, the employee’s treating physician recommended surgery. The employer’s utilization review provider declined to approve the surgery, and the Medical Director of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development affirmed the denial. The employee did not return to work for the employer. On September 1, 2010, the employee went to the emergency room complaining of severe back pain. An MRI revealed a herniated disc in the area of the employee’s spine for which his treating physician had previously recommended surgery. The following day, the employee’s treating physician performed the previously recommended surgery and opined that the herniated disc and surgery were causally related to the employee’s January 1, 2010 work injury. The employer denied that the work injury caused the herniated disc and surgery. The employee filed a workers’ compensation claim in the Chancery Court for Humphreys County. The primary disputed issues at trial were causation and the extent of the employee’s disability. The trial court ruled that the herniated disc was causally connected to the work injury and awarded permanent partial disability benefits of 36% to the body as a whole, as well as medical expenses. The employer appealed. This appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Employee’s September 1, 2010 herniated disc, and the fusion surgery performed as a result of it, were causally related to his January 1, 2010 work injury. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that Employee is not totally and permanently disabled. Because the trial court failed to make the findings required by statute when awarding permanent partial disability benefits of six times the medical impairment rating, we vacate the award of disability benefits and remand to the trial court for additional consideration and appropriate findings on this issue.

This is a termination of parental rights case, which was heard by the trial court on January 29, 2013. The trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of the father, Herman H. (“Father”), on February 1, 2013. Father did not file his notice of appeal until March 11, 2013. Because Father’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the date of entry of judgment, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, it was untimely. We must therefore dismiss Father’s appeal.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant physician, claiming that his medical malpractice caused the death of the decedent. The trial court conducted an eight-day jury trial on the plaintiff’s claims. The jury ultimately rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant physician. The plaintiff now appeals, asking this Court to reverse the trial court’s judgment on the verdict on the basis of numerous alleged errors. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jim George Conaser a.k.a. Jimmy George Conaser, of separate counts of failing to timely register as a sexual offender and of failing to sign a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) sexual offender registration form, both Class E felonies. The trial court imposed a consecutive terms of four years for these convictions. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s refusal to dismiss count two, the trial court’s failure to merge the counts, the trial court’s jury instructions, and the sentences imposed. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, the judgment and four-year sentence in count one are affirmed. However, upon review of count two, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction and, therefore, reverse and dismiss his conviction and sentence as to that count.

The Bedford County Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of the mother of two children on the grounds of failure to support,substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans,and persistence of conditions,and upon the determination that termination of mother’s rights was in the best interests of the children. The father executed a voluntary surrender of parental rights to the children. Mother appeals. Finding the evidence clear and convincing, we affirm.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Billy Lebron Burson, of three counts of misdemeanor reckless endangerment, three counts of aggravated assault, and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court merged the misdemeanor reckless endangerment convictions into the aggravated assault convictions and imposed a total effective sentence of six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, which was to be served consecutively to a federal sentence. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his aggravated assault convictions, the sentences imposed, and the trial court’s admission of testimony from the State’s “firearms expert.” Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves an award of retroactive child support. Approximately seventeen years after the child's birth, the Tennessee Department of Human Services, acting on behalf of the child's Mother, filed a petition in the Sumner County Juvenile Court seeking to establish paternity and to obtain past and future child support from the Father. Genetic testing confirmed that Father was the child’s biological father. Thereafter, the juvenile courtentered an order establishing paternity and ordering Father to pay $574.00 per month in child support. The juvenile court also awarded Mother seven years of retroactive child support totaling $48,216.00. On appeal, both Mother and Father take issue with the amount of the award of retroactive child support. Upon thorough examination, we conclude that the record does not support the amount of the award of retroactive child support. Accordingly, we vacate and remand the case to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants for fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Tennessee Securities Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 48-1-101, et seq. The claims arose out of the purchase of asset-backed securities. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while Nonresident Defendants also objected to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint as requested for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Nonresident Defendants but reverse the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim as to the remaining defendants. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellant, Darius F. L. Dix, was indicted in a multi-defendant, multi-count indictment by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for simple possession of marijuana and possession of twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of both offenses. As a result, the trial court sentenced Appellant to ten years for the cocaine conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the marijuana conviction, to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to a sentence in another case for which Appellant was on probation/community corrections at the time of his arrest. Appellant’s ten-year sentence was ordered to be served on probation. Subsequently, Appellant filed a pro se “appeal of verdict” in which he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. Counsel later filed an untimely motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and Appellant appealed to this Court arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for the jury to determine that Appellant possessed more than twenty-six grams of cocaine for resale. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

After a benefit review conference in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development failed to produce a settlement, the employee filed suit for workers’ compensation benefits. Because the suit had already been filed, the trial court denied a request by the employer for an independent medical examination pursuant to the medical impairment rating (“MIR”) process in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(5) (2008 & Supp. 2012). After hearing all other proof relating to the claim, the trial court awarded compensation to the employee and questioned the constitutionality of the MIR process. The employer appealed; the Attorney General filed a brief as amicus curiae; and this Court vacated the judgment and remanded the cause for additional proceedings. On remand, the AttorneyGeneral was added as a defendant to address the constitutional issue. The trial court considered additional evidence, which included an MIR report by an independent medical examiner, and ruled that section 50-6-204(d)(5), which requires our courts to consider the opinion of an independent medical examiner appointed under that section as presumptively accurate, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the powers of the judiciary. In the alternative, the trial court held that the statutory presumption of the accuracy of the report, if compliant with constitutional principles, was overcome by the other medical evidence, and that the employee was entitled to a 10% permanent impairment rating rather than the 7% rating in the MIR report. In this appeal, the employer and the Attorney General argue that the statute meets constitutional standards. We hold that the MIR process does not violate constitutional principles, and we further find that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly rebut the statutory presumption. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed in part, and affirmed and modified in part. The cause is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner, Damon Houston, was convicted of especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to fifteen years as a Range I, violent offender. He was unsuccessful on direct appeal to this Court. State v. Damon Houston, No. W2010-00399-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 2672015, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jul. 8, 2011). Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that there were “unconstitutional errors” in the trial process, that his conviction was based on a coerced confession, that his conviction was based on the use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest, and that there was newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that Petitioner has not proven that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, because of his failure to cite authority and put forth arguments to support his assertions, the remaining issues are waived. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

Appellant, Eugene O. Dale, pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, where the number of materials possessed was greater than fifty and less than one hundred, a Class C felony, subject to a reserved certified question of law that challenged the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. The trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of eight years with a release eligibility of thirty-five percent. On appeal, appellant argues that the warrant authorizing the search of his computer was not supported by probable cause because the affidavit for the search warrant relied upon unconstitutionally obtained information. Following our review of the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Lester Page, contends that his guilty plea to incest, a Class C felony, was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred in denying him post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on Travion B. and Davion B., the minor children (“Children”) of Samantha B. (“Mother”). The Children were taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on January 24, 2011, after the younger child suffered a head injury. On October 6, 2011, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother. Following a bench trial spanning four days, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother had committed severe child abuse. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Mother has appealed. We affirm.

This case focuses on the proper classification and distribution of the parties’ assets incident to a divorce. Troy Steven Potter (“Husband”) filed a divorce complaint against Christa Gilman Potter (“Wife”) on August 17, 2011. The parties proceeded to trial in August 2012 on the issues of alimony and classification and division of property. The court awarded transitional alimony to Wife and divided the parties’ assets and debts. Husband appeals the trial court’s classification and division of property. We affirm.

A Tipton County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Tyrone Leon Nelson, charging him with possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser offense of facilitation of possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver, and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony. Defendant was acquitted of the paraphernalia charge. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the facilitation charge and three years for the firearm charge to be served concurrently for an effective three-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for acquittal of the conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony when the jury acquitted him of the underlying felony, and (2)the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for facilitation of possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Robert Eugene Crawford, Jr., was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. The trial court imposed consecutive terms of twenty-five years for each of these convictions. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police; (2) he was entitled to disclosure of grand jury materials; (3) reenactment photographs of the abuse were improperly admitted into evidence; (4) he should have been permitted to conduct individual voir dire of the potential jurors; (5) the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of two witnesses; (6) his investigator should have been permitted to testify as a lay witness about the Defendant’s susceptibility to suggestion and the investigation techniques used; (7) he should have been allowed to present evidence from his mental evaluation about his reading comprehension difficulties; and (8) the trial court made several erroneous sentencing determinations, including the denial of his right to allocution, the length of the sentences imposed, and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.