APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Sullivan County jury convicted the defendant, Bryan Keith Good, of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony, and unlawful possession of a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years for the Class C felony and six years for each of the Class E felonies. The court ordered the defendant to serve the sentences consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction, for an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. On appeal, the defendant (1) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for attempted aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of a deadly weapon; (2) argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; and (3) contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that the convictions for both attempted aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of a deadly weapon violate double jeopardy protections. The defendant's convictions for attempted aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of a deadly weapon are hereby merged. The defendant's remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed. We remand solely for the entry of appropriate judgments consistent with this opinion.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Linda Princinsky, sought reconsideration for a compensable injury that she sustained in 2002. Following the injury, she was able to return to work for her pre-injury employer. Her workers’ compensation claim was settled for two and one half times the anatomical impairment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 241(a). In 2005, she sustained another work-related injury, and was unable to return to her job. She entered into a court-approved settlement of that claim based upon 40.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. She then sought reconsideration, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2), of the settlement of her 2002 injury. The trial court found that she was permanently and totally disabled as a result of that injury and awarded benefits accordingly. Employer and the Second Injury Fund have appealed.  We affirm the trial court’s finding that Ms. Princinsky was rendered permanently and totally disabled by her 2002 injury, but conclude that the trial court erred in failing to offset from its award 272 weeks of benefits previously paid by the employer for the 2002 and 2005 injuries. We, therefore, modify the award and remand the case to the trial court for the entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with this opinion.

This is a divorce case involving the classification and distribution of marital property. The parties purchased three contiguous lots near the husband's parents in Kentucky, intending to move there after the husband's retirement. The husband's parents financed the purchase of the property. Several years before his anticipated retirement, the husband began building a house on one of the lots. After some time, the wife told the husband that she did not want to move to Kentucky. The parties then transferred title on all three lots to the husband's parents in satisfaction of their debt. Subsequently, the husband completed the construction of the house, and his parents sold the house at a profit. The husband's parents then sent the husband a check in the amount of the proceeds from the sale of the house minus the parties' debt to the parents. The husband's parents retained title in the other two lots. Soon after that, the parties filed cross-petitions for divorce. In the divorce decree, the trial court held that the check paid to the husband constituted marital property, and that the other two lots held by the husband's parents were subject to a resulting trust in favor of the husband and the wife. The trial court also awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony and a percentage of the retirement benefits received by the husband after the divorce petitions were filed. The husband now appeals. We reverse the trial court's imposition of a resulting trust over the two lots held by the husband's parents, and affirm the remainder of the trial court's decision.

The matters at issue pertain to the rights and responsibilities of the parties under the underinsured motorist provisions of Plaintiff's automobile insurance. Plaintiff, who was involved in a vehicular accident with another motorist, commenced this personal injury action to recover an amount "under $25,000." The only named defendant is the tortfeasor, however, State Farm is an unnamed party. This is due to the fact that plaintiff served timely and proper notice on State Farm of the commencement of this action and that she was asserting an underinsured coverage claim pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 56-7-1206. Plaintiff subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the tortfeasor for the tortfeasor's policy limits of $25,000, at which time she properly served notice on State Farm of the proposed settlement and her willingness to enter into binding arbitration with State Farm to settle her claim for underinsured motorist benefits. Thereafter, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the underinsured claim against it claiming plaintiff was made whole when she agreed to a settlement with the tortfeasor in an amount in excess of her ad damnum and therefore there was no claim to arbitrate. The court granted the motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed. We have determined the trial court did not err in granting State Farm's motion to dismiss the claim against it because plaintiff sought to recover a judgment in an amount under $25,000 from the tortfeasor and/or State Farm, and plaintiff settled her claim against the tortfeasor for an amount in excess of the ad damnum. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of State Farm.

In a condemnation proceeding, landowners objected to the admission of expert testimony that was based in part on an appraisal of the land 14 months prior to the condemnation. They also objected to the admission of an affiliate broker's opinion of value. The trial court allowed the testimony, the jury returned a verdict, and a motion for new trial filed by landowners was denied. On appeal, landowners assert that both experts' opinions of value were inadmissible, that the trial court failed to properly review the motion for new trial, and that the jury's verdict was not supported by any material evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Wilson Palacio, challenges the sentencing decision of the Bedford County Circuit Court. Following his guilty pleas to one count of aggravated burglary and three counts of aggravated robbery, the trial court imposed an effective twenty-five-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant asserts that his sentence is excessive and that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the liability of a county. The county filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the public duty doctrine barred the plaintiff's claim. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss upon concluding that the public duty doctrine applied and that its special duty exception was inapplicable. After examining the complaint in accordance with the liberal standards required at this stage of the proceedings, we find that Plaintiff's allegations sufficiently state a cause of action to withstand the motion to dismiss.

After a joint jury trial, the Defendant, Katayoun Mohammadi Jaffarian, was convicted of theft of property valued at $500 or less, and the Defendant, Nader Karshenas, was convicted of theft of merchandise valued at $500 or less (collectively "the Defendants"). The defendants were each sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the Williamson County Jail. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial. Nonetheless, the defendants thereafter sought to amend their motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. In this direct appeal, the defendants argue that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support their convictions and that the trial court erred by denying their amended motion for new trial. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Roger Stephen Riner, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of first degree murder, felony murder, and aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the first degree murder conviction. Appellant was sentenced to life for the first degree murder conviction and ten years for the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing certain photographs of the victim's injuries to be admitted as exhibits; (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to view appellant's multiple tattoos; and (4) whether the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court properly ordered consecutive sentencing. Further, appellant waived the remaining issues for failure to include the motion for new trial and/or transcript of the motion for new trial in the record on appeal and failed to establish plain error by the trial court with respect to these issues. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

We granted appeal in this case to determine the trial court's scope of review of the parties' arbitration award. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the parties entered into binding arbitration governed by the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act ("TUAA") and reaffirm our holding in Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co., Inc v. Jaycon Development Corp., No. W2008-01366-SC-R11-CV, S.W.3d , (Tenn. 2010), that the judicial review of an arbitration award is confined to the grounds enumerated in the TUAA. The provision in the parties' arbitration agreement modifying the trial court's scope of review therefore is invalid, and the invalidity of this provision is a mutual mistake justifying rescission of the parties' agreement to arbitrate. Because our holding necessitates additional proceedings on remand, we further hold that parenting issues may not be submitted to binding arbitration in Tennessee because such arbitration eliminates the trial court's determination of the children's best interests. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves service of a garnishment. In the underlying action, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant debtor. At the time, the judgment debtor was an independent insurance agent located in Tennessee. In a discovery response, the debtor stated that he worked for a Missouri insurance company, but he listed his Tennessee office as his work address. The plaintiff issued a garnishment to the Missouri insurance company as the garnishee, and had it served at the Tennessee address, where it was accepted by a front-desk employee. The employee gave the garnishment to the debtor. Therefore, the garnishee did not receive the garnishment and did not respond. The trial court issued a conditional judgment and scheduled a hearing for the garnishee to appear and show cause why the conditional judgment should not be made final. After the hearing, the trial court found that the employees at the Tennessee insurance office were not agents of the garnishee Missouri company, and that service of the garnishment was not effective. The trial court therefore vacated the conditional judgment. The plaintiff-garnishor now appeals. We affirm and agree with the trial court that service of the garnishment was not effective.

We granted appeal in this case to address whether parties may modify by agreement the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator's award. We hold that judicial review of arbitration awards is governed by the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act ("TUAA"). As such, the provision in the parties' arbitration agreement purporting to expand the scope of the judicial review beyond that set forth in the TUAA is invalid. We further hold that the failure of this provision constitutes a mutual mistake requiring rescission of the parties' arbitration agreement. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the trial court's judgment confirming the arbitrator's award, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the defendant’s
conviction of second degree murder should be upheld despite the absence of any proof that the defendant knowingly inflicted the lethal wound. The majority agrees that the evidence did not establish a knowing killing, the elemental and factual foundation for second degree murder. Indeed, the majority agrees that the trial court should not have instructed the jury on second degree murder as a lesser included offense of first degree felony murder. Despite these conclusions, the majority relies upon the mens rea regime for felony murder to impart culpability to the defendant for second degree murder.

The appellant, death-row inmate Billy Ray Irick, challenges the trial court's order of August 20, 2010, finding that he is presently competent to be executed according to the standards enunciated in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), and Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). Applying de novo review, we hold that the trial court applied the correct legal standards in adjudicating the question of the appellant's present competence for execution. Additionally, after carefully and thoroughly reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the evidence fully supports and does not preponderate against the trial court's factual finding that the appellant is presently competent to be executed. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Counsel for plaintiff in damage suit appeals award of sanctions imposed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 against her. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion the award is affirmed.

The appellant, Joe Michael Turner, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court Jury of two counts of aggravated rape, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of one hundred years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court should have merged the kidnapping convictions. Therefore, the judgments of conviction for the especially aggravated kidnapping and the aggravated kidnappings are vacated and the case is remanded for entry of a judgment of especially aggravated kidnapping that includes the merged aggravated kidnapping convictions. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects.

The Defendant, Joshua Lynn Parker, was convicted by a Cocke County Circuit Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and attempted rape, a Class C felony. See T.C.A.__ 39-13-210 (1997) (amended 2006) (second degree murder); 39-12-101 (2006) (criminal attempt); 39-13-503 (2006) (rape). The defendant was sentenced to serve thirty-five years years at 100 percent for second degree murder conviction and eight years at thirty-five percent for attempted rape conviction. The sentences were imposed to run consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the admission of hearsay statements by the victim violated his Confrontation Clause rights; and (3) testimony regarding his service on the "can crew," a work group of jail inmates, prejudiced him at his trial. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Timothy Delando Metcalf, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Sullivan County to burglary, a Class E felony, and theft of $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor, and appeals the denial of his request for an alternative sentence. Metcalf received a sentence of one year in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the burglary conviction and a suspended sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the theft conviction. In this appeal, Metcalf claims the trial court should have also granted probation for the burglary conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of the first degree murders of Renee Jordan, Jerry Hopper, and David Gordon, and the attempted first degree murders of James Goff and Larry Taylor, as well as leaving the scene of an accident. The jury sentenced the defendant to death for each of the first degree murders. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years for each of the attempted murders, to be served consecutively, and to thirty days for the misdemeanor. On appeal, we hold (1) the trial court erred in ruling pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615 that persons attending the guilt/innocence phase of the trial could not testify at the sentencing hearing; (2) the trial court's ruling regarding witness sequestration did not violate the defendant's right to a public trial; (3) the trial court erred in allowing an expert to incorporate hearsay testimony within his opinion without a limiting instruction; (4) the trial court did not err in permitting a victim's fianc_e to offer victim impact testimony; (5) the prosecution engaged in improper argument during the sentencing hearing; (6) the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury on the felony murder aggravating circumstance; (7) the various aggravating factors charged were not duplicative; (8) each of the death sentences satisfies our statutory mandatory review; and (9) the cumulative errors in this case do not entitle the defendant to relief. As to the remaining issues raised by the defendant, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals's conclusions and attach as an appendix to this opinion the relevant portions of that court's decision. The defendant's convictions and sentences are affirmed.

Mr. Fletcher, who was injured in an automobile accident involving an uninsured motorist, sued the insurance company after it denied uninsured motorist benefits under his towing policy. Insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the towing policy did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for Mr. Fletcher's accident because it involved a non-covered auto. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company. Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher appeal. We affirm.

A few years after the parties divorced, the mother filed a Petition for Full Custody of the children and child support. Following long delays, the trial court gave the mother custody of the remaining minor child and ordered child support for the child from the father from the date of the hearing forward. The mother appealed, insisting that retroactive child support should be granted to the date of filing the petition. We hold the child support should be granted from the date of the filing of the Petition and remand for a determination of that back child support.

Plaintiffs purchased property insurance from defendants. The insured building was destroyed by a fire and plaintiffs received the full coverage limit. Nonetheless, plaintiffs sued defendants claiming that the building was under-insured and that they relied on the defendants' negligent advice. A jury trial occurred and after the close of plaintiffs' proof, defendants moved for a directed verdict on all issues. The trial court granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs appeal. We find that a directed verdict is inappropriate because plaintiffs presented sufficient facts for a jury to decide liability. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for a full trial.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a prisoner seeking review of a disciplinary conviction. The respondents did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and a certified copy of the record of the disciplinary proceedings was filed with the trial court. The respondents filed a motion for judgment on the record. After review of the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the trial court granted the respondents' motion for judgment on the record. The petitioner inmate appeals. We affirm.

The defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated rape and his sentence as a repeat violent offender. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction and that the trial court did not err in relying on a certified judgment of another state's court to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is a repeat violent offender pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120. We conclude, however, that the State failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 40-35-120(i)(2) and that the defendant's sentence as a repeat violent offender therefore constitutes plain error. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

The Petitioner, Leonard Edward Smith, appeals as of right from the May 21, 2004 and March 2, 2007 orders of the Hamblen County Circuit Court denying his initial and amended petitions for post-conviction relief challenging his 1985 conviction and life sentence for the first degree felony murder of John Pierce, his 1989 conviction for the first degree felony murder of Novella Webb, and his 1995 sentence of death for the murder of Novella Webb.1 On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because defense counsel provided ineffective assistance in both the trial and appellate proceedings related to these convictions and sentences and because multiple other constitutional violations call into question the validity of these convictions and sentences. After a careful and laborious review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief relative to the Petitioner's conviction and life sentence for the murder of John Pierce and the Petitioner's conviction for the murder of Novella Webb, but we reverse the denial of postconviction relief relative to the Petitioner's death sentence for the Webb murder and remand for a new sentencing hearing in that case. We do so based upon the conclusion that the postconviction court erred in denying the Petitioner's claim that his trial attorneys provided constitutionally ineffective assistance in their investigation and presentation of available evidence in support of their motion to recuse the 1995 resentencing judge.