APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of burglary of a vehicle, and two counts of theft under $500. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to three years on each of the aggravated assault convictions; one year on the burglary conviction; and eleven months, twenty-nine days on each of the misdemeanor theft convictions. The trial court ordered the sentences on the felony convictions to run consecutively, for an effective sentence of seven years. On appeal, the defendant claims five errors: (1) the trial court wrongfully deprived him of his right to counsel; (2) the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objections to the defendant’s case; (3) the trial court erred in its handling of one of the jurors; (4) the jury failed to follow its instructions; and (5) the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion and in failing to apply mitigating factors when imposing sentence. We hold that the defendant is entitled to no relief and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order revoking the community corrections sentence of the Defendant, Montarius A. Williams, and ordering him to be incarcerated. The Defendant contends (1) that some of the proof offered in support of revocation should have been suppressed as the result of an illegal search and (2) that the evidence is not sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Roderick Baldwin, appeals the order of the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his community corrections sentence for his convictions for aggravated criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentences in confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits following a motor vehicle collision involving the plaintiff and another vehicle. The driver of the defendant vehicle left the scene and has not been identified.The owner of the vehicle was subsequently identified, but denied knowing the identity of the driver and claimed no one had permission to operate the vehicle at the time of the accident. The named defendants in this action are the owner of the vehicle and John Doe, the unknown driver. Plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Nationwide Insurance Co., is an unnamed defendant. The defendant owner has liability insurance coverage through State Farm Insurance Co. The plaintiffs settled all claims against the defendant-owner and State Farm for $90,000, $10,000 less than the uninsured motorist limits with Nationwide. Thereafter, the plaintiffs continued to pursue their claims against Nationwide for uninsured motorist benefits, insisting the settlement with the owner of the vehicle did not bar their claims against the uninsured John Doe driver. Upon motion for summary judgment by Nationwide, the trial court found that because the owner of the vehicle had $100,000 of liability insurance, there was not an “uninsured motor vehicle.” Based on this finding, the trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist claim against Nationwide. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
 

The plaintiff, who had purchased a truck from an automobile dealership, filed a products liability suit in 2007 against not only the manufacturer, but also the dealership, as seller. Later, the plaintiff entered a voluntary nonsuit as to the seller and proceeded only against the manufacturer. Over one year after the order granting nonsuit, the manufacturer declared bankruptcy, and, in 2009, the plaintiff again sued the seller, alleging both negligence and strict liability in tort. The seller filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion but granted an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. This Court granted the seller’s application for permission to appeal to consider the application of the saving statute to these unique circumstances. We hold that the plaintiff may proceed under the strict liability claim because that cause of action did not accrue until the manufacturer was judicially declared insolvent. Because, however, the second suit alleged acts of negligence on the part of the seller, an exception to the statutory rule prohibiting products liability suits against sellers, and could have been brought in 2007, the statute of limitations is a bar to recovery under that theory. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for trial.
 

The petitioner, Kevin Joel Hernandez, appeals the Davidson CountyCriminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to sell more than seventy pounds of marijuana within one thousand feet of a school zone and resulting fifteen-year sentence to be served at one hundred percent. The appellant contends thathe received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel (1) failed to investigate his case adequately, consult with him, or prepare for trial and (2) failed to request a jury instruction on facilitation. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court

I concur in the judgment of the Court, but I do not join the majority’s conclusion that a product liability action based on strict liability does not accrue against a non-manufacturing seller until the manufacturer “has been judicially declared insolvent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(b) (2000). Rather, I would hold that a product liability cause of action accrues “on the date of the personal injury,” as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-104(b)(1) (2000). However, I would hold that, with respect to claims against a non-manufacturing seller based on strict liability, the one-year statute of limitations is tolled until the manufacturer “has been judicially declared insolvent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(b).
 

The Petitioner, Mannaka Oung, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2000 conviction for aggravated assault and resulting three-year suspended sentence. Oung filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to advise him of the plea’s possible effects on his immigration status and potential deportation. The post-conviction court concluded that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the petition. On appeal, Oung argues that his claim is based on a constitutional right that did not exist at the time of his plea, such that the statute of limitations does not bar his claim. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson CountyCriminalCourt jury convicted the appellant, Jamar Ed-Wae Scott, of two counts of first degree felony murder, two counts of second degree murder, and two counts of attempted robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus eight years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify about a statement made by a co-defendant pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(1.2)(E), the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the defendant, Bobby Joe Young, Jr., of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him, as a multiple offender, to serve six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following a review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Gibson County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, David Hooper Climer, Jr., of first degree premeditated murder and abuse of a corpse, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of life and two years, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the premeditated murder conviction and shows he was insane when he abused the victim’s corpse, (2) the trial court should have granted his motion to sever, (3) the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress his statements to police, (4) he was denied his right to a speedy trial, and (5) the trial court should have dismissed a prospective juror for cause. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction of first degree premeditated murder but that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. The appellant’s first degree murder conviction is reduced to second degree murder, and the case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. The appellant’s conviction of abuse of a corpse is affirmed.

Ricky Nelson (“the Petitioner”) filed a motion for post-conviction deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, requesting DNA analysis of a knife used in the perpetration of a rape. After a non-evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner has appealed. After reviewing the record, we have determined, in light of the recent decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36, 56 (Tenn. 2011), that a remand of the case to the postconviction court is necessary for the post-conviction court to consider and rule upon whether the Petitioner has satisfied the first of four factors necessary for the Petitioner to demonstrate his right to DNA analysis and to address whether the Powers decision would affect the postconviction court’s analysis and finding on the second of the four factors.

This is a dispute between two neighbors over the use of land. The plaintiff, Carol Phillips, charged the defendant, Todd Shrader, with trespass. She sought an injunction and damages, along with removal of encroaching structures. The trial court dismissed Ms. Phillips’s action, finding it barred by Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-103. Ms. Phillips appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After his claim for insurance benefits for an injury sustained while making a delivery was denied,plaintiff filed suitagainstthe delivery company,the companyproviding the insurance coverage and its president, and the third party administrator of the insurance plan, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The jury found the company providing the insurance and its president liable for violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the insurance company and president contend that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was an employee of delivery company rather than an independent contractor, in excluding various exhibits and testimony, in denying the president’s motion for a directed verdict, and in awarding punitive damages. Because the punitive damage awarded was predicated on the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, which does not authorize an award of punitive damages, the award of punitive damages is vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether an award of treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act should be awarded. In all other respects, the judgment and rulings are affirmed.

The petitioner filed for post-conviction relief from two counts of facilitation of second degree murder and resulting thirty-eight-year sentence. She alleged that her guilty pleas to these offenses were not entered knowingly; that her convictions were based on a violation of her privilege against self-incrimination; and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant-Appellant, Jimmie Royston, of two counts of prostitution near a school, a Class A misdemeanor. The two counts were merged into one judgment, and he received a sentence of nine months and a $1,000 fine. On appeal, Royston asserts that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for prostitution, and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach Royston at trial with prior misdemeanor theft convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Greene County jury convicted the Defendant, Jeremy Curtis Workman, of five counts of rape of a child and two counts of incest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twentyfive years confinement for each rape of a child conviction and six years for each incest conviction and ordered that the rape of a child sentences run concurrently to each other but consecutively to each incest conviction, for a total effective sentence of thirty-seven years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his statements; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever the offenses; (3) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the prosecutor’s failure to establish jurisdiction or proper venue of the trial court; (4) the trial court erred when it overruled his motion to exclude members of the clergy from testifying at trial; (5) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings; (6) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for mistrial based on improper, prejudicial testimony from a DCS investigator; and (7) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for new trial based on the prosecutor’s improper comments to the jury. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Christopher Pillow, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to declare a mistrial based upon a detective’s testimony that the Defendant had previously been incarcerated; and (3) the trial court erred when it enhanced his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude no error exists in the trial court’s judgment. The trial court’s judgment is,therefore, affirmed.

The Petitioner, Billy Lee Simmons, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, wherein he seeks relief for his eight-year sentence for possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and within 1,000 feet of a school. The crux of the Petitioner’s argument is that his Class A felony sentence is illegal because it was enhanced pursuant to the Drug-Free School Zone Act. We agree that the Petitioner’s sentence is illegal, albeit for a different reason—his sentence for a Class A felony not being authorized by law—and that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing the petition. We remand to the Johnson County Circuit Court for the appointment of counsel and a hearing to determine the proper remedy.

The Defendant, Thomas G. McConnell, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Williamson County to driving under the influence, second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2008) (amended 2010). He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with forty-five days of the sentence to be served. On appeal, he presents a certified question of law regarding the legality of the traffic stop that led to his arrest. Because the certified question was not properly reserved, we dismiss the appeal.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Leonard Brakefield, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), fourth offense, and refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test (“BAC”). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for DUI, fourth offense. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The case involves a lease-purchase agreement. The plaintiff truck driver worked for the defendant hauling company. He entered into a lease-purchase agreement with the codefendant leasing company, affiliated with the employer hauling company, to purchase the truck he drove in his employment. At the end of the lease, the leasing company refused to transfer title to the truck to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against both defendant companies, alleging breach of contract, conversion, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The defendants asserted the affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment based on the plaintiff’s employment agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff on all of his claims. However, based on an arbitration provision in the employment agreement, it granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration of the defendants’ affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment. The defendants now appeal. In light of the trial court’s order compelling arbitration, we dismiss the appeal and remand for entry of an order staying the proceedings pending the arbitration.

The defendant, Christopher Black, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to an effective term of fifty years imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but remanded for a resentencing hearing “regarding [the defendant’s] sentencing status with respect  to the 2005 sentencing act and regarding the issue of consecutive sentencing.” State v.Christopher M. Black, No.M2007-00970-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 26, 2010). Following a hearing on remand, the trial court, applying the single enhancement factor for prior criminal history, sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years for each count of aggravated rape and to ten years for each count of aggravated robbery. The court further found the defendant to be a dangerous offender and ordered that the two aggravated rapes be served consecutively, but concurrently to the sentences for robbery, again resulting in an effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in the imposition of consecutive sentences. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences as imposed.

The Petitioner, Michelle Tipton,appeals the Davidson CountyCriminal Court’s denial of her petition for habeas corpus relief from her 2000 conviction for first degree felony murder and resulting life sentence. She claims her conviction is void because (1) the judgment fails to identify the date of her indictment, (2) the judgment lists a non-existent offense, (3) the judgment fails to list her release eligibility percentage, (4) the same aggravating circumstance was used during the guilt and sentencing phases of the trial, (5) the State violated statutory sentencing guidelines, and (6) the judgment rendered a non-existent sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Upon the defendant’s plea of guilty to theft, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence to be served in the community corrections program. Although the defendant violated a condition of his release shortly after September 30, 2003, the revocation warrant was not filed and issued until ten months later. While revoking the community corrections sentence and ordering the defendant to serve the duration of his sentence in prison, the trial court approved credit for time served only through September 30, 2003, the estimated date of the violation. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the credit should have extended until the issuance of the revocation warrant. We hold that the filing date of the revocation warrant begins the tolling of sentence credits. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.