APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

County appeals the trial court’s decision finding the County liable for injuries sustained by
a student with Asperger’s syndrome in an altercation with another student. Finding that the
evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination, we affirm.

The petitioner, Cedric Davis, appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Petitioners appeal from the dismissal of their complaint for declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and damages wherein they challenged the constitutionality of a now superseded
section of the Tennessee Bail Reform Act, Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-11-118(a).
Petitioners contended that the 2011 statute prohibited night court judges or magistrates from
setting bail for persons charged with a second or higher driving under the influence violation,
thus requiring they be confined until a general sessions court judge or criminal court judge
was available. The trial court dismissed the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief on the
grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel and dismissed the claim for monetary damages
against Governor Bill Haslam upon the ground of sovereign immunity. We find the challenge
to the constitutionality of the 2011 version of subsection (a) moot as the challenged
provisions of subsection (a) have been deleted and superseded. We also affirm the dismissal
of the claims against Governor Haslam for monetary damages as he has sovereign immunity.

Petitioner, Miqwon Deon Leach, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He challenges his 2001 conviction for felony murder, for which a jury sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He also challenges his conviction for conspiracy to commit second degree murder that arose from the same case. As grounds for habeas corpus relief, petitioner argues that: (1) conspiracy to commit second degree murder is not a cognizable offense under Tennessee law, rendering his conviction void; and (2) the evidence at trial did not establish his intent to commit felony murder. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the court.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Bonnie Faith Rodgers (“Wife”) sued her husband, Thomas Edward Rodgers (“Husband”), for divorce in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”), alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. Wife and Husband had been married for more than 40 years. Husband answered and counterclaimed for divorce, also alleging inappropriate marital conduct. After a trial, the Trial Court divided the marital estate and awarded Wife periodic alimony. Husband appeals, arguing that the Trial Court erred in a host of ways, including its classification and division of the marital estate and its award of periodic alimony to Wife. Husband also appeals the Trial Court’s extending Wife’s Order of Protection against him for an additional five years. Wife raises her own issue regarding the allocation of certain vehicles. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.

This is a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff patient presented at the hospital emergency room with chest pains; a stent replacement was performed. Three months later, the plaintiff’s treating physician told the plaintiff that she had suffered a heart attack during the stent replacement. The plaintiff obtained all her medical records and filed a lawsuit against the surgeon who performed the stent replacement. This lawsuit was later dismissed without prejudice. After the plaintiff substituted counsel and the plaintiff’s substituted attorney reviewed the medical records, the plaintiff filed a new lawsuit against the emergency room physicians, asserting that they were negligent prior to the stent replacement. The emergency room physicians filed a motion for summary judgment, based in part on the three-year statute of repose. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant emergency room physicians, finding that the statute of repose had run on the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff patient appeals, arguing that there is an issue of disputed fact as to whether the defendant physicians engaged in fraudulent concealment, so as to toll the time limit under the statute of repose. We affirm.

Petitioner, Freddie L. Osborne, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of the pro se petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Petitioner. After a thorough review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus trial court.

Appellant, Timothy W. Ford, was convicted by a DeKalb County jury of the initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven years and six months. Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for the following reasons: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior conviction; and (3) the sentence was excessive because the trial court failed to give ample weight to the mitigation evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a trial, a Davidson County jury found appellant, Steven Woodrow Johnson, guilty of felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison for felony murder. The trial court also sentenced appellant to serve sentences of ten years for especially aggravated burglary (count two) and five years for aggravated burglary (count four) and then merged the two convictions. Appellant was sentenced to five years for aggravated assault and three years for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Some sentences were consecutive to each other, but all were concurrent to the life sentence for felony murder. Thus, appellant received an effective life sentence. On appeal, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following review of the record, we conclude that the conviction of especially aggravated burglary should be modified to aggravated burglary. Because only one judgment of conviction should have been entered as to the merged counts, we vacate the judgments in count two and count four and remand to the trial court for entry of a single judgment of conviction consistent with this opinion. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

This is a Governmental Tort Liability Case. The trial court determined that Appellant was at least 50% at fault for the injuries she sustained when she fell from an elevated stage at an event held at a building, which is owned and operated by Appellee City of Jackson. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Alleged creditor filed a claim against the decedent’s estate seeking $524,160 for personal
services she claims to have provided to the decedent during the last ten months of his life.
She claims the decedent agreed that she would reside in his home and provide the decedent with around the clock care. Upon motion for summary judgment filed by the administrator of the estate, the probate court denied the claim, finding there was no contract or quasi-contract between the alleged creditor and the decedent because the decedent was mentally incapable of entering into a contract, and that the family service rule barred the alleged creditor from recovering because the alleged creditor and the decedent were engaged to be married at the time of the decedent’s death. We affirm.

A Sullivan County jury convicted the Petitioner, Timothy Lynn Denton, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v. Timothy Lynn Denton, No. E2006-02557-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 933200 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Apr. 7, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 27, 2008). The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to convey to him plea offers and by failing to appeal the trial court’s ruling that he was competent to stand trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This appeal involves the forfeiture of property that had been either used or furnished in
violation of the Drug Control Act. The property at issue was subject to a lien held by
Citizens Bank. Following the forfeiture of the seized property, Citizens Bank notified the
State of its lien and requested the return of the property. The State directed Citizens Bank
to file an appeal with the chancery court. Instead, Citizens Bank sued Claimant for the
balance owed on the property and an order of judgment was entered against Claimant.
Claimant filed suit against the State in the Claims Commission, alleging that the State was
negligent because it failed to notify the proper lienholder of the forfeiture. The State filed
a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the Claims Commission. Claimant
appeals. We affirm the decision of the Claims Commission.

Appellant, Scot E. Vandergriff, pled guilty to soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means, a Class E felony, for which he received an agreed- upon sentence of two years. The trial court granted his request for probation but denied his application for judicial diversion. In this appeal, he claims that the trial court erred in denying his application for judicial diversion. Because the trial court failed to adequately state upon the record the basis for denying judicial diversion, we vacate the judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I concur completely in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express my disagreement with the following dicta in the majority opinion: While the wording of [Tennessee Supreme Court] Rule 13 [§1(d)(2)(B)] indicates that Grandmother may have had a statutory right to an attorney during the termination proceeding,

The Defendant, Albert Franklin Thompkins, appeals as of right from the trial court’s revocation of his enhanced probation and reinstatement of his eight-year sentence for rape. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the State failed to prove that he had violated the terms of his probation in a substantial way in that he had not committed any new crimes nor was there any evidence that he had failed any drug screens. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s probation and order that the Defendant execute his original sentence in confinement.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Larry Wayne Webb, of theft of property valued $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range IV, career offender to twelve years. On appeal, the appellant contends, and the State concedes, that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we agree that the evidence is insufficient. Therefore, the conviction is reversed, and the charge is dismissed.
 

In 1986, petitioner, Charles Borum, pled guilty to two offenses, a Dickson County charge of aggravated kidnapping and a Davidson County charge of aggravated rape, and received forty-year sentences on each offense. Davidson County agreed to run the aggravated rape conviction concurrently with the Dickson County aggravated kidnapping conviction. Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Davidson County conviction is illegal, and thus void, because it did not award him pretrial jail credit as required by law. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Fred Chad Clark, II, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of seven counts of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-522 (Supp. 2005, 2006) (amended 2007, 2011) (rape of a child), -504 (2006) (aggravated sexual battery). He was sentenced as a Range I offender to seventeen years for each rape of a child conviction and to ten years for each aggravated sexual battery conviction, to be served at 100% as a child rapist. The trial court ordered partial consecutive sentencing, for an effective thirty-four year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to establish the corpus delicti; (2) there was a material variance between the proof and the State’s election of offenses; (3) the trial court erred in admitting surreptitiously recorded conversations he had with his wife on January 18, 2007; (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant’s use of pornography; (5) the trial court erred in allowing a detective to offer opinion testimony about the Defendant’s truthfulness; (6) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the mental state of recklessness for the counts involving rape of a child; and (7) the trial court erred in sentencing by using an inapplicable enhancement factor and in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in Counts V, VI, VII, IX, and X. Due to deficiencies in the election of offenses relative to Counts I, II, III, and IV, we reverse those convictions and remand the case for a new trial for those counts.

The District Attorney General denied the request of the Defendant, Aref Al Yamani, for pretrial diversion. The Defendant appealed to the trial court, who found that the District Attorney General had abused its discretion when it denied the Defendant’s request for pretrial diversion because the District Attorney failed to consider all the relevant factors when it denied the Defendant’s request. Based upon this finding, the trial court ordered the District Attorney General to approve the Defendant’s application for pretrial diversion. The State appeals, contending that the proper remedy in this scenario is for the trial court to vacate the District Attorney General’s decision and remand the matter to the District Attorney General to further consider and weigh all the relevant factors, citing State v. Richardson, 357 S.W.3d 620 (Tenn. 2012). After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude the trial court erred when it failed to remand the case to the District Attorney General to consider all the relevant factors. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand to the Shelby County Criminal Court with directions to remand to the Shelby County District Attorney General for reconsideration in accordance with this opinion.

In this case, the child at issue was declared dependent and neglected and was placed in grandmother’s custody following the child’s removal from mother. Months later, father petitioned for custody of the child. The court granted father’s petition and awarded grandmother reasonable visitation. Thereafter, father filed a petition to terminate mother’s parental rights. Mother objected and sought custody or visitation, while grandmother asked the court to either reinforce her court-ordered visitation or grant joint custody. The court denied the petition to terminate mother’s parental rights, transferred grandmother’s courtordered visitation to mother, and advised grandmother that she would enjoy visitation as designated by the parents. Grandmother appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

A show cause order was entered in this case on August 16, 2012, directing the non-attorney father of the minor child in this case to state why this appeal should not be dismissed based upon his filing of the notice of appeal on behalf of his son and without the benefit of counsel. The father responded to the show cause order, but his contentions do not cure the defect in the notice of appeal. Our review of the record reveals that this court lacks jurisdiction. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner, Larry Boyd, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, which led him to enter a guilty plea “under duress.” Specifically, he asserts that counsel “refused” to set the case for trial and failed to investigate the facts of the case, interview key witnesses, and adequately communicate with him. After review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Chester Carr Peterson, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine and evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a sentence that included community corrections. The Defendant’s community corrections officer filed a violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community corrections sentence, finding that he had violated the terms of his sentence, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in prison. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Joseph Davison, was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to twelve years for each count, to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the fact that the original charges filed against him only identified his DNA profile, and he was not identified by name until after the statute of limitations had expired. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and imposition of consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.