APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant/Appellant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and violation of the implied consent law. At trial, Appellant and the arresting officer gave conflicting testimony as to whether Appellant refused to submit to a blood test. The jury acquitted Appellant of the driving under the influence charge, but the trial court, crediting the arresting officer’s testimony, found that the Appellant had violated the implied consent law. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in crediting the testimony of the arresting officer despite the acquittal by the jury. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Timothy Scott Marcum and Audrey L. Marcum (“Plaintiffs”) purchased real property containing a house originally constructed by Haskel “Hack” Ayers and Tomi Ayers (“Defendants”). After the purchase, Plaintiffs discovered problems with the house. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a settlement agreement. Subsequently, Plaintiffs discovered additional problems with the house. Plaintiffs sued Defendants. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendants summary judgment after finding that the settlement agreement constituted an unambiguous release of all claims past, present, and future. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, arson, a Class C felony, and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. Prior to trial, the defendant pled guilty to an additional count of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. She was sentenced to four years for the arson and three years on each count of tampering with evidence, with each sentence to run concurrently but consecutive to a twenty-one year sentence for the second degree murder, for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for second degree murder and that the trial court erred by sentencing her to partial consecutive sentences. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Tosha Taylor, appeals the denial of her motion to reopen her post-conviction petition. Because she failed to comply with the statutory requirements for seeking review of a dismissal of a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition, we dismiss the appeal.

Jeffrey R. Cooper (“Cooper”) sued Phillip Glasser, Richard Glasser, and David Glasser (“the Defendants ”) in the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) 1 for, among other things, breach of contract. Cooper previously had filed two lawsuits arising out of the same underlying facts as those of this lawsuit. Both previous lawsuits, the first in a California state court and the second in a United States District Court in Tennessee, were voluntarily dismissed. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court held that the second voluntary dismissal in federal court was a judgment on the merits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, res judicata prevented Cooper from filing suit for a third time in Tennessee. Cooper appeals. We affirm.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Pamela A. Jones, suffered a work-related injury in 2004 and reached a settlement agreement with her employer, Vanderbilt University (Vanderbilt). She filed this action arguing that Vanderbilt was required to pay for bilateral knee replacement pursuant to the settlement agreement. Vanderbilt alleged that the need for the requested medical treatment was not caused by the work injury. After a hearing, the trial court ordered Vanderbilt to pay for Ms. Jones’s bilateral knee replacement. Vanderbilt has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

In this workers’ compensation case, the trial court awarded the employee, a truck driver who fell while attempting to get in his truck, 60% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for injuries to his left knee and both shoulders. The employer has appealed, asserting that the award is excessive. The employer also maintains the employee failed to prove that the injury to his right shoulder was work-related. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding the evidence insufficient to support the defendant’s convictions of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder. Affording the State the strongest legitimate view of the evidence presented at trial and the reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

The parental rights of Mother and Father to their two children were terminated based upon abandonment, persistent conditions, and non-compliance with the permanency plans. We affirm in part and we reverse in part; however, we affirm the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father.

In this post-divorce case, Mother sought to modify the existing custody arrangement relating to the Children that she shared with Father. At the time of divorce, the parties agreed to equal co-parenting time but designated Mother as the primary residential parent. Mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that a material change in circumstances had occurred. Father objected. The trial court held that there had been a material change of circumstances and that it was in the best interest of the Children to modify the parenting plan as Mother requested. Father appeals the court’s modification decision. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Father’s rights based on clear and convincing evidence that Father was sentenced to incarceration for ten (10) years while the child at issue was younger than eight (8) years of age. The trial court further found that it was in the best interest of the child for Father’s rights to be terminated in order for the child to establish a permanent home with his foster family. Father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its best interest analysis. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a divorce case. Prior to the parties’ marriage, the wife lived in Arkansas and the husband lived in Tennessee. When the parties married, the wife quit her job in Arkansas and the parties moved into a house in Tennessee. They separated after just seven months of marriage, and the husband filed this complaint for divorce. After a two-day trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced and equitably divided the parties’ marital property. The trial court awarded the wife transitional alimony, attorney fees as alimony in solido, and moving expenses for the wife to return to Arkansas. The husband now appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff/Appellant sustained injuries after she tripped over a steel post that was protruding just above the surface of a parking lot that is owned by the Defendant/Appellee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, finding that the Appellee owed no duty to the Appellant, and that Appellant was at least 50% at fault for her own injury, thus negating her negligence claim. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Health filed civil charges against Nurse Jackson alleging that she had inappropriately prescribed medications for her daughter. Before a hearing on the merits was held, however, the Department filed a Notice of Nonsuit without prejudice. After an Order of Voluntary Dismissal was entered, Nurse Jackson filed a Petition in the chancery court seeking dismissal of the case against her with prejudice, as well as her attorney fees expended, claiming that the Board of Nursing had subjected her to an unwarranted investigation and prosecution which was “not well grounded in fact and was not warranted by existing law, rule or regulation[.]” She did not, however, seek a consideration of the merits of the charges against her. The chancery court dismissed Nurse Jackson’s Petition. We find that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider her Petition; therefore, the judgment of the chancery court is vacated and the case is dismissed.

A Sumner County grand jury indicted appellant, Bobby A. Raymer, for one count of especially aggravated kidnapping and one count of aggravated robbery, and a jury found him guilty of both counts. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years to be served at 100% release eligibility. On appeal, appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether the trial court should have merged the two convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to use a demonstrative exhibit. Upon review of the record and the applicable case law, we conclude that the conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. The conviction for aggravated robbery is affirmed.

The Defendant, Matthew Brian Graham, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for one count of attempted child abuse and three counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and ordering the remainder of his effective eight-year sentence into execution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Gerry Hoover, was convicted by a Coffee County jury of three counts of rape of a child. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of forty-eight years. Petitioner’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Gerry Hoover, No. M200701595-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 768928, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 25, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal involves an attempt to substitute parties after the original plaintiff in this wrongful death case died. The trial court struck the motion to substitute parties and dismissed the case. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life in prison, appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals alleging a number of errors in the conduct of the trial, particularly the trial court’s failure to suppress a statement the defendant had made to the police. The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the statement was the product of an unlawful arrest, but held that the admission of the statement qualified as harmless error. This Court granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in order to determine the propriety of the defendant’s arrest and to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had used the appropriate standard of review in its harmless error analysis. Because the arrest of the defendant was supported by probable cause and there was no other prejudicial error during the course of the trial, the judgment is affirmed.

This case involves a claim for attorney’s fees and costs under the Public Records Act. The
trial court declined to award fees and costs to appellant under Tenn.Code Ann. § 10-7-
505(g), which requires a finding of a willful and knowing failure to comply with requests
filed pursuant to the Act. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying an award of attorney’s fees and costs because the court made specific findings
concerning the willfulness of appellee’s failure to respond, and the evidence does not
preponderate against those findings. Affirmed.

After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of one count of especially aggravated kidnapping and three counts of aggravated rape, all Class A felonies. He received four twenty-year sentences, all to run concurrently. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by using criminal convictions he received for crimes committed after those committed in the instant case to enhance his present sentences from fifteen to twenty years. After review we conclude that the trial court did not err by enhancing the defendant’s sentences. We affirm.

Appellant/Father appeals the trial court's finding that he was in criminal contempt for failure to pay child support. Upon review of the record, we reverse and dismiss the criminal contempt charges.

This appeal involves a claim for breach of a life insurance contract issued by Old Line. Father named his son, a minor, as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. When Father died, the proceeds of the policy were issued to minor’s older sister, who depleted the funds. Beneficiary filed suit against Sister and Old Line, alleging that Sister misappropriated the life insurance proceeds and that Old Line erroneously awarded the proceeds to Sister without proper documentation. A default judgment was entered against Sister. Following a trial on Beneficiary’s claim against Old Line, the court ordered Old Line to re-issue a portion of the proceeds to Beneficiary. Old Line appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Appellant, Henry Floyd Sanders, was indicted for six counts of aggravated sexual battery and four counts of rape of a child. On appellant’s motion, the trial court dismissed one count of aggravated sexual battery on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all remaining counts. The trial court ordered appellant to serve partial consecutive sentences of ten years each for the aggravated sexual battery convictions and twenty years each for the rape of a child convictions, yielding an effective forty-year sentence. Appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to a third party; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to a variance between the bill of particulars and the State’s election; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentences. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A White County jury convicted petitioner, Joel Ernest Blanton, of one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, for which the trial court ordered an effective twenty-four-year sentence. Following the direct appeal, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, petitioner pursues only one claim of error, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain visitor logs from the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) that could have been used to impeach the primary material witnesses against him. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable case law, we agree with petitioner and reverse and remand this case for a new trial.