APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a divorce case. The appellant, Derek C. Freels, seeks to appeal from an order of the trial court entered February 22, 2011. That order is not final, and, hence, is not appealable as of right. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

This is an appeal of a dependency and neglect proceeding. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

In the parties' divorce in 2000, they agreed to a joint custody arrangement of their two minor children. This action was triggered in 2008 when the father advised the mother he intended to move to North Carolina and take the children with him. In the action brought by the mother, she asked to be designated the primary caregiver and custody of the children to remain in Hamblen County. Following a protracted evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court denied the father's request to give him custody and take the children to North Carolina, but awarded custody of the children to the mother with visitation to the father. The father has appealed, and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the general sessions court. The defendant appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add an additional plaintiff and an additional cause of action and to seek additional damages. Shortly before trial, the defendant filed a notice dismissing her appeal. The circuit court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the general sessions court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-107 (2000). We hold that the circuit court properly dismissed the defendant’s appeal and affirmed the general sessions judgment. To preserve the plaintiff’s original cause of action after such dismissal, the plaintiff must perfect an appeal to the circuit court as prescribed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-108 (2000). We therefore affirm the judgment of the lower courts.

A jury convicted the petitioner, Jason Paul Sherwood, of two counts of premeditated first degree murder, two counts of felony murder, and attempted first degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences plus twenty-five years. This court upheld his convictions and sentences. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied relief. The petitioner appeals the court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Deshawn McClenton, appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the post-conviction court’s 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 post-conviction court.

In this boundary line dispute, Plaintiff-Appellant argues that the trial court erred by relying on the survey of Defendant-Appellee’s expert and not on the surveys proffered by Plaintiff-Appellant’s experts in determining the boundary. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision. Consequently, we affirm.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Saul Esteban Vasquez, for possession with intent to deliver not less than 70 pounds nor more than 100 pounds of marijuana, a Class B felony, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class D felony, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant pled guilty to the Class B felony, with the length and manner of service for the sentence left to the discretion of the trial court. The remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying all forms of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Emmanuel S. Trotter, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erroneously dismissed his petition as untimely when due process concerns necessitated tolling of the statute of limitations. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal involves the termination of parental rights. The State removed the child at issue from the custody of the parents due to neglect, parental absence, and underlying substance abuse. The child was ultimately placed with the petitioner foster parents. Subsequently, the biological parents moved out of Tennessee. The foster parents later filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and father, as a predicate to adoption. The trial judge terminated the parental rights of the biological parents on the grounds of persistent conditions and abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, failure to visit, and failure to support.The mother and father appeal. We reverse on the grounds of persistent conditions, abandonment by failure to pay support, and abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home. However, we affirm on the ground of abandonment by failure to visit and affirm the termination of parental rights.

In separate trials, the petitioner was convicted of aggravated rape for an incident occurring in March of 1980 and of aggravated rape and robbery by use of a deadly weapon for an incident occurring in May of the same year. In 2007, the petitioner sought to have deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) analysis performed on the remaining evidence pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, arguing that exculpatory results would create a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted on either charge. The petitioner contended that he could conclusively establish his innocence if the DNA profile developed from the evidence was uploaded into a DNA database and matched another profile in the system. The post-conviction court denied relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that DNA analysis was limited to a comparison between the petitioner’s DNA and that collected as a part of the evidence in the case. We granted the petitioner’s application for permission to appeal to determine (1) whether the General Assembly intended to permit petitioners proceeding under the Act to use DNA database matches to satisfy their burden and (2) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals’ interpretation of the statute served to preclude the development of scientific evidence supportive of actual innocence. We hold that the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act permits access to a DNA database if a positive match between the crime scene DNA and a profile contained within the database would create a reasonable probability that a petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained or would have rendered a more favorable verdict or sentence if the results had been previously available. Because the criteria for ordering DNA analysis under the Act are established, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the post-conviction court for entry of an order granting DNA analysis.

The petitioner, Misty Jane Brunelle, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her convictions for three counts of aggravated child abuse and resulting effective sentence of twenty-five years to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, she contends that (1) she received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) the post-conviction court erred by denying her motion for further genetic testing on the victim; and (3) the post-conviction court erred by determining that newly discovered evidence does not exist in this case. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s ruling that the petitioner did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel and the post-conviction court’s denial of the motion for additional genetic testing. However, the court’s determination that newly discovered evidence does not exist in this case is reversed because that issue should have been raised in a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

The defendant was convicted at trial of three offenses: aggravated burglary; theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; and theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The trial court classified the defendant as a career offender, imposed sentences of fifteen, fifteen, and twelve years respectively, and ordered the twelve-year sentence to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined as follows: (1) that the conviction for theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 violated the prohibition against double jeopardy; (2) that, if properly convicted of the remaining offenses, the defendant qualified as a persistent rather than a career offender; and (3) that, in any event, the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for aggravated burglary and theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. While conceding that the Court of Criminal Appeals had properly set aside the lesser theft conviction and, in consequence, correctly determined that the defendant qualified as a persistent rather than a career offender, the State applied for permission to appeal, arguing that the other two convictions should be reinstated. This Court, applying the standard of review established in State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011), holds that the evidence presented at trial warrants reinstatement of the convictions. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for resentencing in light of this opinion.

The Petitioner, Charles Macklin, appeals as of right from the Shelby County CriminalCourt’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner pled guilty to especially aggravated robbery and attempted first degree murder and received a sentence of 18 years to be served at 100 percent for the robbery conviction and a concurrent sentence of 18 years to be served at 30 percent for the murder conviction. The Petitioner challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the performance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a divorce case in which Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s order. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s order is not final because it fails to address Husband’s request concerning the sale of the marital residence. The order is also deficient in that it: (1) is ambiguous and fails to resolve certain conflicts between a mediation agreement and a stipulation entered by the parties; (2) fails to make the mandatory findings as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, and specifically fails to properly value the marital property. We dismiss the appeal and remand for entry of a final judgment, which resolves the ambiguities and is otherwise compliant with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01.

The employee suffered a compensable spinal cord injury. He settled his workers’ compensation claim with his employer in 2007. The settlement provided for future medical treatment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a) (2008). In 2009, the employee sought authorization and payment for a hydrotherapy tub. His employer declined to authorize installation of the tub. The employee filed a motion for authorization of medical care in February 2010 and supported the motion by attaching a note from his authorized treating physician that he would “benefit” from use of the tub. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal, we reverse.

The Defendant-Appellant, Tiffany Sanders McNeal, entered guilty pleas in Case No. 2009-D-2911 to two counts of possession with the intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance (one count for a Schedule III drug and one count for a Schedule IV drug), a Class D felony, and in Case No. 2009-D-3417 to one count of attempted aggravated child abuse with a weapon, a Class C felony, in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Pursuant to her plea agreement, the remaining counts in Case No. 2009-D-2911 for the delivery of a Schedule III drug and criminal impersonation were dismissed, and McNeal received concurrent sentences of six years with a release eligibility of  thirty-five percent for the drug convictions and ten years with a release eligibility of forty-five percent for the attempted aggravated child abuse conviction, for an effective sentence of ten years. The manner of service of the sentence was determined by the trial court at the sentencing hearing. On appeal, McNeal argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying an alternative sentence and a community corrections sentence. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Petitioner, Michael Wayne Howell, was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993). After his petition for post-conviction relief was denied, Petitioner sought to reopen post-conviction relief proceedings maintaining that he was mentally retarded (hereinafter “intellectually disabled” or “having intellectual disability” or other proper designation in light of statutory amendments in 2010) and thus ineligible to be sentenced to death. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner relief, and Petitioner appealed. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Travis Kinte Echols, of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, the appellant raises numerous issues, including that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Finding no errors that warrant reversal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Jeffrey Scott, of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant presents nine issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior bad acts that were relevant only to show propensity; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements under the state of mind and excited utterance exceptions; (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting fifty color autopsy photographs; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing improper lay opinion testimony; (5) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony that was protected by the attorney-client privilege and that violated the defendant’s right to confrontation; (6) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motions for mistrial or to strike a witness’s testimony; (7) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree murder; (8) whether the sequential jury instructions precluded the jury from considering a conviction for voluntary manslaughter; and (9) whether the trial court misapplied enhancement and mitigation factors in sentencing. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff sued his former employer, claiming that he was entitled to unpaid overtime pay and reimbursement for the cost of educational courses he took while employed by the employer. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the plaintiff overtime pay, reimbursement for the courses, and attorney’s fees. We reverse the decision of the circuit court and vacate the award.

Petitioner, Ronald Crook, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to properly cross-examine the State’s witnesses and investigate the facts of his case. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Capital Appellant, Corinio Pruitt, appeals as of right from his conviction for first degree felony murder and his sentence of death resulting from the August 2005 death of Lawrence Guidroz. On  February 29, 2008, a Shelby County jury found the Appellant guilty of one count of second degree murder and one count of first degree felony murder, and the trial court merged the conviction for second degree murder with the first degree murder conviction. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury unanimously found the presence of three statutory aggravating circumstances; specifically, (1) the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more felonies involving the use of violence, (2) the murder was knowingly committed while the defendant had a substantial role in committing a robbery, and (3) the victim was seventy (70) years of age or older. See T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (7), (14). The jury further determined that these three aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of death. The trial court approved the sentencing verdict. On appeal, the Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to find the Appellant intellectually disabled and ineligible for the death penalty, (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for first degree felony murder, (3) whether the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of the autopsy photographs of the victim, (4) whether application of the (i)(7) aggravating circumstance is constitutional, (5) whether the evidence is sufficient to support application of the (i)(7) aggravator, and (6) whether the sentence of death is proportionate in the present case. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for intentional fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Because the plaintiff did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order denying her motion to alter or amend the judgment as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner, Terry Jones, pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to sell more than twenty-six grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and received a sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and a $2,000 fine. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.