APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

An employee received workers’ compensation benefits for a traumatic brain injury he suffered while working for his employer. The employee’s claim was settled for 21% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. After experiencing additional difficulties, the employee sought reconsideration of those benefits. The trial court awarded the employee 55% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employee has appealed, contending that the award was inadequate. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Mel Lindsay Atwell, pled guilty to driving under the influence fourth offense, a Class E felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to five years for the aggravated assault conviction and two years for the felony driving under the influence conviction and ordered that the sentences run consecutively, for an effective sentence of seven years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences because the State had not met its burden of proof to support that decision. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Plaintiff in case alleging legal malpractice appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant attorney. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

The Petitioner, Bobby Joe Strader, appeals as of right from the Morgan County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends (1) that the habeas corpus court erred by not appointing counsel and not allowing him to amend his petition with the assistance of counsel prior to its dismissal and (2) that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily dismissing his petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus 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.

Petitioner, David Ferrell, was convicted in Warren County of failure to display a license, violation of the seatbelt law, and two violations of the vehicle registration law. Petitioner represented himself at trial. Petitioner was sentenced to an effective sentence of fifty days. Petitioner appealed the convictions pro se, arguing that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case and “that he is not subject to the enforcement of traffic laws by local law enforcement authorities.” State v. David A. Ferrell, No. M2007-01306-CCAR3-CD, 2009 WL 2425963, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 7, 2009), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Feb. 8, 2010). This Court upheld the convictions. Id. at *3. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed as untimely. On appeal, the State conceded that the petition was improperly dismissed as untimely. This Court agreed and reversed the dismissal of the petition. See David A. Ferrell v. State, No. M2010-00696-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 5625882, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 28, 2010). On remand, Petitioner sought recusal of the post-conviction judge. The judge denied the motion and the matter proceeded to a hearing. After the hearing, the post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief because Petitioner has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Appellant, Jessica Evette Ward, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault and attempt to commit second degree murder. After a jury trial,Appellant was convicted of the lesser included offenses of reckless aggravated assault and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. At a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced Appellant to serve three years in the county workhouse. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial.Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion. After reviewing the record before this Court, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to state on the record its reasons for denying judicial diversion; thus, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The Knox County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Tonya Thomas, for one count of aggravated assault. The trial court found Appellant guilty of a lesser included offense of simple assault. Appellant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days of probation. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for her conviction for simple assault. We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal and have concluded that the evidence presented is sufficient to support the conviction. For these reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial 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. In this workers’ compensation case, the employee experienced chest pain while at home in bed. He testified that he contacted his employer to be excused from work but was told he would lose his employment if he did not come to work. He reported for work and completed a full day of job responsibilities. Two days later, it was determined that he had suffered an acute myocardial infarction. A cardiologist testified that fifty percent of the damage caused by the heart attack was secondary to the delay in medical treatment. The employee sought workers’ compensation benefits, contending that the instruction to report to work substantially worsened his injury. The trial court denied benefits, and the employee has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute. We hold that, in light of the uncontradicted fact that Plaintiff was not properly served with notice of the trial date, the case should not have been dismissed.
 

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, a property developer. The underlying case is for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiffs in a motorcycle accident, which was allegedly caused by a pothole in the road. The question presented for determination is, as between Appellee and Appellant Hardin County, who owns the portion of the road where the accident occurred. After completing its development, Appellee dedicated portions of the roadway to Hardin County for public use. However, in cross-motions for summary judgment the Appellee and Appellant each claimed that the other owned the disputed portion of the road where the accident occurred. Although the disputed portion of the road was specifically excluded from the dedication, and Appellee maintained the road, the trial court determined that Appellee had implicitly dedicated the disputed portion to Appellant and granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee developer. Based upon the evidence in record, we conclude that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions concerning ownership of the road and accordingly, reverse the grant of summary judgment.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Stanley Blue, of facilitation of first degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of forty years. The Petitioner did not appeal his sentence, but this Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. State v. Stanley Blue, No. W2007-00292-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 723845 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 19, 2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2009). The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal. The post-conviction court granted the Petitioner’s petition, in part, finding that his sentences were not constitutional. The State appealed, contending that the post-conviction court erred when it granted the Petitioner a new sentencing hearing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

In this divorce action the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, gave custody of the children to the father, divided the marital property and ordered a monetary judgment against the mother to the father, as an equitable distribution of the marital property. The mother has appealed and questioned the Trial Judge's award of custody of the children to the father, and the Trial Judge ordering a monetary judgment against the mother to the father. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
 

The Petitioner, Teresa Deion Smith Harris, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court’s dismissal of her pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the order 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.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, a truck driver, sustained a compensable back injury. After having surgery, he returned to his pre-injury job for a year and was able to drive with the aid of narcotic medications prescribed to treat his back pain. He subsequently left his employment after results of an annual U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) medical examination determined that his use of the narcotics prohibited him from driving. The trial court found that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work and awarded benefits in excess of one and one-half times the anatomical impairment rating. The employer’s workers compensation insurance carrier has appealed, asserting that the employee’s loss of employment was unrelated to his work injury and that the award should have been limited to one and one-half times the impairment. We affirm the judgment.

Blair Wood and Gary Wood (“Plaintiffs”) sued Tony Wolfenbarger and Brenda Wolfenbarger (“Defendants”) alleging, in part, that Defendants had wrongfully cut down six trees on Plaintiffs’ real property. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendants were liable for negligently cutting the trees, that the current market value of the timber cut was $840, and that Plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in double the amount of the current market value of the timber pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-28-312. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court alleging that the Trial Court erred in awarding damages based upon the timber value. We find and hold that the evidence preponderates against the finding that timber value was the correct measure of damages in this case. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment to award Plaintiffs damages of $62,100 based upon the trunk formula method of valuation and affirm the judgment as so modified.

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 sustained a compensable injury to his lower back in August 2002 which was settled in May 2006. Thereafter the employee continued to be treated by his authorized treating physician. In 2009 the employer requested and the employee consented to an independent medical examination.Thereafter the employer requested another independent medical examination. The employee declined. In April 2011, the employer filed a motion seeking to require the employee to submit to a medical examination pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(1) and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The trial court denied the motion, and the employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Bobby L. Looper (“the Defendant”) of one count of second degree murder, and the trial court subsequently sentenced him as a Range I offender to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the length of his sentence. Upon our thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and the length of his sentence. This matter is remanded to the trial court for the entry of a corrected judgment order.

Losing proposer for solid waste management services challenges Lawrence County’s decision to contract with another proposer. Because we find that the County acted arbitrarily and illegally in making its decision, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
 

Property of the appellants was seized following a traffic stop. Requests for return of the property were denied by the Knox County Sheriff’s Department. The appellants, who were not facing any criminal charges, filed an action in criminal court seeking the return of all the seized property. The Sheriff’s Department subsequently filed drug forfeiture warrants and property receipts. The appellants argued that the Sheriff’s Department was attempting to initiate Department of Safety jurisdiction in disregard of their earlier filing in criminal court. The criminal court dismissed the action, asserting lack of jurisdiction. The appellants appeal. We affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a permit allowing a proposed rock quarry to discharge storm water and wastewater into a nearby creek. Owners of property allegedly affected by the discharge filed an appeal challenging the issuance of the permit with the Water Quality Control Board, as well as a petition seeking a declaratory order construing the rules regarding the protection of existing uses of waters. The Water Quality Control Board refused to issue a declaratory order and the property owners appealed to the Davidson County Chancery Court. Because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested,we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for dismissal of this cause. Vacated and remanded.
 

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to have the appellees held in criminal contempt based upon their failure to comply with various subpoenas commanding them to appear at depositions and produce documents to be used by the appellants in the context of an administrative asset forfeiture proceeding on the docket of the Tennessee Department of Safety. The petition was filed in the Criminal Court for Knox County, Tennessee. It was denied on grounds that the court in which the petition was filed had no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The appellants appeal. We affirm.

Petitioner filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside a parental termination and adoption decree. The motion asked relief from the Judgment on the ground set forth in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.02(1) and (2). The Trial Court held that petitioner did not establish a basis to set aside the Judgment on the grounds relied upon in the Rule 60.02 motion. On appeal we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.