APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Lonnie Lee Owens, appeals the Franklin County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for second degree murder, abuse of a corpse, and theft over $10,000 and his effective twenty-four-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that (1) counsel was ineffective by failing to object to an erroneous statement contained in the presentence report and by failing to include the trial transcript in the appellate record, (2) counsel was ineffective in cross-examining the medical examiner, (3) counsel was ineffective by attempting to negotiate a plea agreement in the jury’s presence, (4) counsel was ineffective by failing to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses, (5) counsel was ineffective by failing to interview a witness before the trial, (6) counsel was ineffective by failing to request a change of venue, (7) counsel was ineffective by failing to file a motion for a new trial and by failing to appeal his conviction, (8) the cumulative effect of counsel’s errors deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel, and (9) he is entitled to a delayed appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Williamson County Criminal Court Jury found the appellant, Gregory Lamont Hodge a.k.a Gregory L. Locke, guilty of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a career offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department’s refusal to allow defense counsel to record an interview with the confidential informant who purchased drugs from the appellant prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

These personal injury cases against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., and Ford Motor Company (collectively "the Defendants") were consolidated below for all pre-trial proceedings. They have been before this court twice before, first pursuant to a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal and later by way of a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal. They have generated two published opinions. In re Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor Company Tire Litigation, 138 S.W.3d 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), perm. app. den. Jun. 1, 2004 ("Firestone I"); In re Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor Company Litigation, 286 S.W.3d 898 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008), perm. app. den. Mar. 23, 2009 ("Firestone II"). In Firestone I, we held that these cases should have been filed in Mexico. We dismissed them on the ground of forum non conveniens. In Firestone II, we held that unsuccessful attempts to file in Mexico could possibly establish that Mexico was not an available alternative forum,contrary to the assumption made by us in Firestone I. We remanded the cases for a hearing on the issue of whether the dismissals in Mexico took place in spite of the plaintiffs’ good faith efforts or, rather, occurred because of the plaintiffs’ manipulation of the cases in order to secure the dismissals in Mexico and thereby have an excuse to refile in Tennessee. The trial court dismissed eight of 26 pending cases. The cases that were dismissed fall into two distinct groups. One group involves tires ("the FR 480 tire cases"), specifically Firestone 480 tires, that were actually manufactured in Mexico. The trial court concluded that the failure to join the entity in Mexico that actually made the tires there showed that the plaintiffs in those cases should not be permitted to litigate whether Mexico was an available forum. The other group consists of two cases which were filed in Mexico on more than one occasion, only one of which was disclosed in discovery ("the Ramirez and Flores cases"). The plaintiffs in both groups (collectively "the Plaintiffs") appeal. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Joseph Shaw, appeals as of right from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends (1) that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because trial counsel failed to challenge a juror who was previously acquainted with the Petitioner; (2) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call several witnesses to testify as to the Petitioner’s character; and (3) that the Petitioner was denied his right to trial by a fair and impartial jury. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal concerns the statute of limitation for the extension of a judgment. J. Waymon Ellison (“Plaintiff”) obtained a judgment in the Chancery Court for Loudon County (“the Trial Court”) against David L. Alley, Sr. and David L. Alley, Jr. (“the Defendants”) in an action related to a real estate transaction. Years later, Plaintiff’s successors-in-interest (“the Successors”) sought to extend the judgment a second time for another ten years. The Trial Court extended the judgment, holding that the first ten year extension of the judgment began to run upon the expiration of ten years from the date the judgment was entered, and, that the initial ten year period in this case began to run from the date the judgment actually was entered rather than the nunc pro tunc date indicated in the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as modified.

The Defendant, Paula Crowder, pled guilty to vehicular assault, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to serve three years in the Department of Correction (DOC). She challenges the trial court’s denial of probation and alternative sentencing. After consideration of the applicable authorities and the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Arnes’a Hart, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of felony murder, one count of aggravated child neglect, and one count of child neglect after the death of her infant son. In exchange for pleas of guilty to criminally negligent homicide and child neglect, Appellant received sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The charge of aggravated child neglect was dismissed. The plea agreement specified that the trial court would determine the manner of service of the sentence after a hearing. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing, ordering Appellant to serve her sentence in confinement in order to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense and due to Appellant’s lack of truthfulness at the sentencing hearing. Appellant appeals the denial of alternative sentencing. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude the record indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an alternative sentence where the proof showed that there was a need for deterrence of similar crimes, and Appellant was untruthful at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The question presented by this appeal is which parent should be named the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child. The trial court named Appellee Mother primary residential parent. Appellant Father appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

The defendant, Telly Lamont Booker, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine in a school zone, evading arrest, and unlawful possession of a weapon. In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his previous convictions, by permitting a police officer to testify as an expert witness on the habits of individuals involved in the illegal drug trade, and by refusing to provide a requested jury instruction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The mother of two minor children appeals the order placing her children and a stepdaughter in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services and limiting her to supervised visitation following a determination that the mother’s husband severely sexually abused another child in the home and the determination that the children were dependent and neglected. We affirm.
 

The Petitioner, Michael Thacker, appeals the Circuit Court of Hardeman County’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal by a mother from the juvenile court’s judgment finding her in civil contempt for failure to pay child support and incarcerating her until she paid $400 toward the arrearage to purge the contempt. Finding the evidence inadequate to support a finding that the mother had the ability to pay child support when it was due or that she had the ability to pay $400 at the time of the hearing in order to purge the sentence, we reverse.

This is a termination of parental rights case in which Custodial Parents sought termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Child. The trial court granted the termination petition, finding that Mother willfully failed to support and visit the Child and that termination was in the best interest of the Child. Mother appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Defendant, Olivia Kathleen Epps, pleaded guilty to first offense driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 55-1-401 (2010). She was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven months and twenty-nine days, all suspended but forty-eight hours. The Defendant’s plea agreement reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of the traffic stop that led to her arrest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court./p>

The Petitioner, Cleo Henderson, appeals the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Lillian (“the Child”) is the offspring of H.A.S. (“Father”) and H.D.S. (“Mother”). The parties were never married to each other. They entered into two mediated agreements regarding Father’s co-parenting time with the Child. The agreements were never presented to or approved by a court. The parties followed the agreements for a time but conflicts developed and Father filed a petition seeking review and modification of the agreements. He asserted that there had been a material change in circumstances and that he should be awarded primary custody of the Child. Following a bench trial, the court found and approved the mediated agreements as being in the Child’s best interest. The court further determined that there had been no change in circumstances warranting a change in custody; but the court did find and hold that Father’s co-parenting time should be revised. Father appeals. We affirm.

Matthew V. and Carlene V. (“the Foster Parents”) filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Lewis S. (“Father”), father to the minor twin children Maria B. S. and Anna J. S. (“the Children”). After a trial, the Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Children after finding that grounds for termination pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113 (g)(1), (g)(3), and (g)(9) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that clear and convincing evidence had been shown that it was in the Children’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. We affirm as modified.

The petitioner, James Richard Lening, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2008 Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, felony vandalism, and aggravated criminal trespass, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In November of 1998, a number of American tobacco manufacturers and a majority of the states and territories of the United States, including Tennessee, reached a settlement in litigation over tobacco-related healthcare costs. The terms of the settlement permit the tobacco manufacturers that were involved in the litigation to withhold a portion of their liability under the settlement terms based upon loss of market share in a participating state, unless the state enacts a “qualifying statute” requiring manufacturers not party to the litigation to either participate in the settlement or pay an amount into a designated escrow fund based upon annual cigarette sales. The underlying purpose of requiring non-participating manufacturers to either join in the settlement or pay into the escrow fund is to assure “a level playing field” for all manufacturers selling cigarettes in the participating states and territories. In consequence, Tennessee adopted a qualifying statute, the Tennessee Tobacco Manufacturers’ Escrow Fund Act of 1999 (“Escrow Fund Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-31-101 to -103 (2001 & Supp. 2012), which requires “[a]ny tobacco product manufacturer selling cigarettes to consumers within the state of Tennessee” after May 26, 1999, to either become a party to the existing settlement agreement or make specified payments into a “qualified escrow fund.” Id. § 47-31-103(a).
 

Following a jury trial, Petitioner, Damien Clark, was convicted of second degree murder. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction in State v. Damien Clark, W2007-00651-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 890886 (Tenn. Crim. App. April 1, 2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2009). Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner appeals, asserting that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Jim George Conaser, contends (1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for harassment and (2) that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing was improper. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s harassment conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the sentence from that conviction to run consecutively to a prior, unserved sentence.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Neil Vader, was convicted of driving in violation of a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO) order, driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), violation of the implied consent law, and driving on a revoked driver’s license. Defendant waived a jury trial to determine the number of his prior DUI convictions. The trial court found that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions and was guilty of DUI fourth offense. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve one year and nine months for counts one and two and eleven months and twenty nine days for count three. All of Defendant’s sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The trial court merged count four, driving on a revoked driver’s license, with violation of a MVHO order. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in excluding testimony offered as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a witness; (2) the prosecuting attorney engaged in misconduct during closing arguments; and (3) the cumulative effect of the trial court’s evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct constitutes reversible error. After thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves a post-divorce order of protection. Several years after the parties’ divorce in another state, the appellant mother obtained an order of protection against the appellee father in a Tennessee general sessions court, to restrict his contact with her and the parties’ minor child. The parties’ out-of-state divorce decree was enrolled in the Tennessee chancery court, where the mother also sought a continued order of protection, contempt relief, and modification of the parties’ parenting arrangement. All matters, including the general sessions order of protection, were consolidated in the Tennessee chancery court. The chancery court held a hearing on the order of protection. It declined to extend the order of protection and dissolved it. All other matters before the chancery court remained pending. The mother filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We hold that the dissolution of the order of protection, with other matters still pending, is not a final and appealable judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and remand to the chancery court.

The defendant, Lewis Green, appeals the trial court’s decision to deny his request for alternative sentencing and judicial diversion. The defendant pled guilty to seven counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and one count of possession of marijuana with intent sell. He received an effective five-year sentence for the convictions. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered that the sentences be served in incarceration and denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion. Following review of the record, we affirm the sentencing decisions of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Allen Hessmer, appeals pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The trial court denied the Defendant’s request to proceed pro se during his pretrial hearings on the charges of aggravated burglary, arson of a structure, arson of personal property or real estate, harassment, and stalking. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the Criminal Court for Wilson County