APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Nathaniel Kelly, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order of incarceration. The Defendant contends (1) that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections sentence and placing his original sentence into effect, instead of ordering a period of shock incarceration followed by release to community corrections, and (2) that the trial court did not issue a statement setting forth the evidence or factors it relied upon in making its determination to revoke his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentence.

The defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation, challenges the trial court’s decision to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Based upon the defendant’s initiation of a contractualrelationship with a Tennessee manufacturerand itsentry into a contractproviding that Tennessee law would control, we affirm the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction in this dispute arising out of the contract.
 

The Defendant, Jonathan Radford, pled guilty to two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a Range I offender, to two concurrent five-year sentences and ordered him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement, with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation report, the second such report filed against the Defendant. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation for a second time and ordered that he serve the balance of his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Timothy Dewayne Williams, appeals as of right from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from the attorneys representing him at trial because they failed to call an eyewitness to the crime. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Derrann William Estill,appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping and resulting seventeen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, that he is entitled to relief based upon cumulative error, and that the post-conviction court failed to address adequately his claims of due process violations. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a dependency and  neglect petition originally filed by the Department of Children’s Services in the Juvenile Court for Shelby County in May 2010. We dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a premises liability case in which Karen Wright alleged that she slipped in a puddle of water and fell on the floor while exiting an Autozone store. She filed suit against Autozone Stores, Inc., claiming negligence. Autozone Stores, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Karen Wright could not prove that it caused the condition which led to her fall or that it had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to her fall. Autozone Stores, Inc. also alleged that Karen Wright could not recover because she was 50 percent or more at fault for her injuries. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Karen Wright appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

In this interlocutory appeal, we must decide whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a workers’ compensation case when the time stamp on the complaint is earlier than the “time noted” on the Benefit Review Conference Report, pursuant to Benefit Review Process Rule 0800-2-5-.09(2). Because a workers’ compensation action may not be filed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(a)(2)(A) (2008) until exhaustion of the benefit review conference process, we hold that when subject matter jurisdiction over a workers’ compensation case depends upon the issuance of a Benefit Review Conference Report, the “time noted on the Report” is controlling. Moreover, we hold that the time stamp on the complaint,if unambiguous,maynotbe impeached with extrinsic evidence. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss this action.
 

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of abandonment, persistence of conditions, and that termination is in the best interests of the children. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding persistence of conditions. However, we affirm the trial court’s finding of abandonment and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
 

The Defendant-Appellant, Donald Jones, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and thirty years, respectively. On appeal, Jones argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this consolidated appeal, Petitioner Tony Cox appeals the trial court’s order denying his application to qualify as a bondsman’s agent to write cash bonds in the Criminal Courts of the Thirtieth Judicial District, and Petitioner Samuel R. Brisco appeals the trial court’s revocation of his authorization to write bonds in the Criminal Courts of the Thirtieth Judicial District. In both of these cases, the trial court determined that the Petitioners’ restoration of citizenship rights following their felony convictions did not remove the civil disability preventing them from serving as a bondsman or bondsman’s agent. On appeal, the Petitioners argue that they are entitled to serve as bond agents pursuant to Attorney General Opinion 04-143. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following his jury conviction of aggravated rape, the petitioner filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his conviction resulted from the ineffective assistance of counsel and that due process considerations should toll the statute of limitations. The post-conviction court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a basis for due process tolling and summarily dismissed the petition. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

Raymond T. Carriger (“Carriger”) filed a petition to terminate his child support obligation in the Chancery Court for Meigs County (“the Trial Court”). The State of Tennessee ex rel. Ronda M. Letner (“the State”) opposed Carriger’s petition. Carriger argued that he suffered from a disability and, as a result, was unable ever to pay off the arrearages he had accumulated. The Trial Court granted Carriger’s petition and absolved him of his child support arrearages. The State appeals, arguing that such a retroactive modification of child support is prohibited under Tennessee law. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Petitioner, Albert Evans, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, for which he is serving life without the possibility of parole plus twenty-four years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Cumberland County jury convicted the Defendant, Cody Cofer, of two counts of felony murder and one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed consecutive life sentences for the felony murder convictions, ordering those sentences to run concurrently with the twelve-year sentence it imposed for the attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to determine whether a witness was an accomplice; (3) the trial court erred by refusing to give a missing witness instruction to the jury; (4) the State’s closing argument was improper; and (5) the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive life sentences. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Davidson County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Melissa Grayson, for aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. Following jury verdicts of guilty on all five counts, the trial court sentenced appellant to an effective seventeen-year sentence. Appellant claims the following errors at trial: 1) the trial court erred in declaring a witness unavailable and allowing the State to introduce his preliminary hearing testimony; 2) the trial court erred in permitting the State to elicit improper character evidence from a witness; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. The State contends that appellant has waived the first two issues because her motion for new trial was untimely. We have concluded that the State is correct with respect to its waiver argument and further, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jason C. (“Putative Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, Alexis M.M. (“the Child”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) pursued termination after Putative Father was incarcerated and the Child was adjudicated dependent and neglected in the care of her mother, LeAnn M. (“Mother”). Following a bench trial, the court applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A), applicable to non-legal parents, and terminated Putative Father’s rights based upon multiple grounds, including the failure to provide child support, to visit, or to establish his paternity. Putative Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of these grounds. We affirm.

A Davidson County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Melissa Grayson, for aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. Following jury verdicts of guilty on all five counts, the trial court sentenced appellant to an effective seventeen-year sentence. Appellant claims the following errors at trial: 1) the trial court erred in declaring a witness unavailable and allowing the State to introduce his preliminary hearing testimony; 2) the trial court erred in permitting the State to elicit improper character evidence from a witness; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. The State contends that appellant has waived the first two issues because her motion for new trial was untimely. We have concluded that the State is correct with respect to its waiver argument and further, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Sidney Cleve Metcalf, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, the Petitioner claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief because of alleged defects in the indictment. The crux of his argument is that his indictment is invalid because it did not allege all of the elements of the offense of aggravated rape, i.e., that the penetration of the victim was accomplished while being armed with a weapon. He also contends that he is entitled to relief because the grand jury foreman did not sign the indictment. We conclude that there is no error in the judgment of the habeas corpus court and affirm.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, James Randall Roskam, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the State impermissibly elicited testimony from its witnesses about his prior bad acts in violation of Rule 404(b), Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On January 31, 2011, Appellant, Johnny Marvin Highsmith, II, entered guilty pleas to one count each of theft of property over $1,000, identity theft, and theft of property over $500 with an effective sentence of eight years. He was placed on community corrections with all but 165 days of his sentence suspended. The trial court issued a violation of community corrections warrant on May 2, 2011, and amended that warrant on June 3, 2011. The trial court held a hearing and revoked Appellant’s community corrections sentence and ordered that he serve his original sentence in incarceration. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his sentence in incarceration. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the trial court did not abuse it discretion. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Appellant, Odell Wisdom, pled guilty in Sullivan County to the charge of felony failure to appear in exchange for a five-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. The trial court held a sentencing hearing specifically for the purpose of addressing Appellant’s request for probation or alternative sentencing. The trial court denied Appellant’s request and ordered Appellant to serve the sentence in confinement. Appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. However, after a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly denied probation or alternative sentencing. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jermaine Bradford, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Circuit Court of Davidson County. He sought habeas corpus relief from his conviction in the Criminal Court of Davidson County for especially aggravated kidnapping. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation 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. The employee filed this action for reconsideration of a 2006 workers’ compensation settlement pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(i)(2008). The settlementwas based on a 2005 injuryconsisting of lumbar disc herniations that resulted in a 12% anatomical impairment rating to the body as a whole. The employee made a meaningful return to work, and his recovery was therefore capped at 1.5 times the impairment rating—18%. The cited statute allows reconsideration when the employee is no longer employed by his pre-injury employer, as occurred in this case when his employer was acquired by another company in 2010. The trial court found the original settlement adequately compensated the employee for his vocational disability and declined to award additional benefits. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
 

In a bench trial, petitioner, Mario Pendergrass, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder,especially aggravated kidnapping,and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life in prison plus forty-four years. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief raising the following issues:(1) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to develop mental health evidence; (2) whether trial counsel denied petitioner his right to testify at trial; and (3) whether petitioner voluntarily waived his right to a trial by jury. The post-conviction court denied relief following a full evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.