APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

At an earlier time, i.e., November 1, 2004, the trial court, inter alia, ordered Pamela M. ("Mother") to pay Gregory L. E. ("Father"), the then-custodian of their child, Tyler M. ("the Child"), a child support arrearage of $7,920 (through October 31, 2004) and prospective monthly child support of $165 plus $35 to be applied on the arrearage. Over the years that followed, several petitions were filed, the disposition of which are not germane to the issues on this appeal. On November 23, 2005, Mother filed a petition for modification based upon the fact that the Child was then in her custody under an order of the trial court. The trial court entered an order on February 15, 2006, providing that "current support is terminated because [Mother] now has custody of the [C]hild." The record contains a number of subsequent pleadings and orders that also are not relevant to this appeal. Finally, on January 16, 2009, Mother filed a petition for modification seeking "to terminate all arrearage and liquidate arrearage to [F]ather." The trial court entered an order on July 17, 2009, determining that "the arrearage balance was proper based on the fact that child support cannot be modified retroactively." The court did reduce Mother's monthly arrearage payment from $50 to $35. Mother appeals and both sides raise issues. We affirm.

This appeal concerns post-divorce modification of alimony and child support. The parties had two children; during the marriage, the wife remained at home and cared for the parties' children. The husband was self-employed through his solely owned company. Ultimately, the parties divorced on stipulated grounds, and the husband was ordered to pay child support. The husband was awarded his business. The trial court awarded two commercial buildings to the wife and ordered the husband to pay the associated mortgage. The husband was ordered to pay alimony until the buildings were paid off, after which the wife's income was to be derived from the buildings. After the divorce, the income of the husband's company increased substantially and the husband refinanced the buildings. Two years after the divorce, the wife filed a petition for modification of alimony and child support. After a trial, the trial court declined to increase the alimony. It granted an increase in the husband's child support obligation to the maximum under the guidelines, but declined to award more than the guideline amount. The trial court also declined to award the wife attorney fees. The wife now appeals. We find that the increase in the income of the husband's company was a substantial and material change in circumstances, and that the decision not to increase alimony was an abuse of discretion, and therefore modify the alimony award. We affirm the trial court's refusal to grant an upward deviation from the guideline amount of child support. We reverse the trial court's denial of the wife's request for attorney fees with respect to child support and alimony, but affirm the denial of attorney fees for the refinancing of the two buildings awarded to the wife.

This is a medical malpractice action. Appellant originally filed a claim in 2007 in the name of an estate. The original claim was subsequently non-suited. Less than one year later, the claim was then re-filed, also in the name of an estate. With permission of the court, the Appellant later amended the complaint to name the administrator of the estate as the plaintiff. However, upon the Appellee's motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint finding: (1) the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations as there were no allegations in the complaint which would invoke the savings statute; (2) the complaint failed to state with particularity the specific acts of negligence; and (3) that the Appellant failed to comply with the notice requirements for a medical malpractice action found in Tenn. Code. Ann. _ 29-26- 121. Finding that the trial court erred, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Charles Parsley ("the plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, sued Elmer Price ("the defendant") in the General Sessions Court for Hawkins County. In attempting to allege his cause of action, the plaintiff employed a civil warrant form with the pre-printed designation, "Detainer Summons." The general sessions court transferred the case to the trial court. The trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiff's suit was not a detainer action but rather a suit "in the nature of either quiet title or of ejectment." Following a bench trial on September 22, 2009, the court incorporated its written memorandum opinion into an order and granted "judgment in favor of the defendant." Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Karen Marable, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Shelby County of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. She was sentenced as a standard offender to nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Marable claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred in responding to a jury question; and (3) her sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Thomas Joseph Cordle, appeals from the revocation of his probation, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve his sentences in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, a Range I offender, was found guilty of public intoxication, theft of property over $1,000, and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of thirty days for the misdemeanor and four years for the felony theft; because the six-year sentence for aggravated burglary is to be served consecutively, the effective sentence is ten years. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This Court granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal to consider the propriety of instructions to the jury permitting inferences of both theft and burglary from the possession of recently stolen property. A second issue is whether the trial court erred by failing to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of aggravated burglary for insufficient evidence. As his final issue, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to further examine a defense witness after jurors had submitted questions pursuant to rule. Because the instructions were proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict on the burglary charge, and the procedure utilized for juror questions was compliant with the rule, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

This appeal involves the application of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act to an action for damages filed against a defendant that was not covered by the Act when the injuryproducing events occurred. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the Circuit Court for Shelby County seeking the benefit of the claims and defenses available to government entities under the Act. The plaintiffs responded by challenging the constitutionality of legislation extending the coverage of the Act to the defendant on the ground that the legislation had been enacted after the plaintiffs had sustained their injuries. The trial court held that the Act applied to the defendant but granted the plaintiffs permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. We granted the plaintiffs' application for permission to appeal after the Court of Appeals declined to consider the case. We have determined that applying the substantive amendment to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act enacted after the injury-producing events occurred to the plaintiffs' damage claims violates the prohibition against retrospective laws in Article I, Section 20 of the Constitution of Tennessee.

The Defendant, Paul Williams, appeals from judgments entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving on a suspended license, violation of the passenger vehicle safety belt law, and violation of the motor vehicle registration law. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict him, that his convictions violate his constitutional right to travel, and that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Terry Lynn Raney, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief wherein he challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions of possession with intent to sell or deliver 26 grams or more of cocaine, keeping or maintaining a dwelling place where controlled substances are used or sold, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana on grounds that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. Because there is a clerical error in the judgment form for the petitioner's conviction of possession of cocaine, the case is remanded to the Criminal Court for Sullivan County for the entry of a corrected judgment form.

The petitioner, Michael Davis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his especially aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Because we conclude that trial counsel was deficient for failing to request a jury instruction on facilitation as a lesser- included offense of especially aggravated robbery, and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the petitioner's trial would have been different had counsel done so, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for the granting of post-conviction relief.

Husband seeks to set aside a divorce decree and permanent parenting plan entered by default on the ground that the provisions of such differed significantly from the relief sought in Wife's complaint for divorce and proposed parenting plan. We reverse the trial court's decision insofar as it failed to grant Husband the relief sought.

Plaintiffs were assessed, and paid taxes under the Drug Tax, which was later declared unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sought refunds individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The trial court certified the class, and the Department filed this interlocutory appeal challenging certification. Because the Taxpayer Remedies Statute, which must be strictly construed as a derogation of sovereign immunity, does not contemplate the maintenance of a class action, we reverse the trial court's grant of class certification.

The Petitioner, Garner Dwight Padgett, appeals the Putnam County Criminal Court's denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder. The Petitioner contends (1) that the trial court violated the Petitioner's federal and state constitutional rights at the trial by asking members of the venire whether they could be fair to both sides, thus lowering the State's burden of proof, and (2) that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial for failing to object to the trial court's asking whether the members could be fair. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Robert Thomas Reed, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) (first offense), a Class A misdemeanor, and driving after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO), a Class E felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to two years with service of six months in the county jail and the balance to be served on probation for the MVHO conviction and a concurrent sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days suspended to six months for the DUI conviction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that formed the basis of both convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Alfred Turner, was found guilty by a jury of the lesser included offenses of facilitation of felony murder, a Class A felony, and facilitation of second degree murder. After merging the convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years of incarceration as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, he argues that: insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction; a proper chain of custody for the introduction of DNA evidence was not established; the trial court erred in allowing into evidence that two other individuals had been acquitted of this murder; and the trial court erred in both jury instructions and sentencing. After careful review, we conclude that even though sufficient evidence existed to support the defendant's convictions, the defendant's sentence ran afoul of Blakely and the prior acquittals of two other individuals deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Therefore, the error requires a remand for a new trial.

Appellant Jeff D. Arp pled guilty to two counts of incest stemming from two separate incidents involving his mentally disabled teenage daughter. One incident took place before the effective date of the 2005 amendments to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, and one incident took place after the effective date. Appellant chose to be sentenced under the prior law for the first offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years for each conviction, to be served consecutively, and denied alternative sentencing. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in its application of the enhancement factors and in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm.

Appellant Elizabeth Gay Tindell was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) when, after a night out with friends, she stopped on the side of the road to call for a ride home. A sheriff's deputy saw her pull over and, concerned that she might be in distress, approached her car. During his stop, the deputy concluded Appellant was intoxicated, and a subsequent breathalyzer test revealed her blood alcohol content was .20 percent. A Hamilton County Grand Jury indicted her for DUI and DUI per se, and she was convicted after a bench trial. She appeals, contending that the trial court erred in: (1) denying her motion to suppress evidence from the deputy's stop; (2) admitting evidence of the breathalyzer test results; (3) denying, in an issue of first impression, her motion to compel discovery of the source code for the breathalyzer device used to test her blood alcohol content; (4) finding sufficient evidence to convict her of DUI per se; and (5) finding sufficient evidence to justify the court's conclusion that Appellant was subject to the enhanced seven-day incarceration minimum. We affirm.

I agree with the majority that, given the present state of the record in this case, summary judgment is not appropriate. As the record now stands, “[w]hether the plaintiff[s] exercised reasonable care and diligence in discovering the injury or wrong is . . . a fact question for the [trier of fact] to determine.” Wyatt v. A-Best Company, 910 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tenn. 1995). In other words, there is a genuine issue as to this material fact. At trial, the finder of fact must determine if the plaintiffs filed suit within one year of the point in time when they first knew, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should 1 have known that an actionable injury had occurred. Id. at 856-57.

Plaintiffs' home flooded and incurred severe water and mold damage when the hot water tank burst. Plaintiffs began to experience varying illnesses after moving back into the home. Despite Defendants' assurances that the home was safe, three years after moving back into the home, Plaintiffs discovered that their home was contaminated with toxic mold. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants alleging various claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint asserting that the statute of limitations barred the claims. After a hearing, the trial court agreed and dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment; the trial court denied the motion. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.

The Defendant-Appellant, Devon O'Neal Wiggins, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of sale of cocaine over 0.5 grams, a Class B felony; possession of cocaine under 0.5 grams with intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony; possession of marijuana under 0.5 ounce, a Class A misdemeanor; and evading arrest, a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender, to thirty years for the sale of cocaine over 0.5 grams, fifteen years for the possession of cocaine under 0.5 grams, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the possession of marijuana, and six years for the evading arrest conviction. He was ordered to serve the above sentences concurrently to each other, but consecutively to another unrelated case. On appeal, Wiggins argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for sale and possession of cocaine; (2) the testimony of a State's expert witness concerning an exemplar graph violated his right of confrontation; (3) the trial court erred by not charging the jury on the offense of sale of a counterfeit controlled substance; (4) Wiggins' prosecution for possession of marijuana was not commenced within the one-year statute of limitations; (5) the trial court improperly commented upon the evidence; (6) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument; (7) the sentence imposed by the trial court for sale of cocaine was excessive; and (8) cumulative error necessitates reversal of Wiggins' convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Wesley Earl Brown, of two counts of rape of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to twenty-five years for each rape conviction, to be served consecutively, and ten years for each sexual battery conviction, to be served concurrently but consecutively to the rape convictions, for a total effective sentence of sixty years. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming: (1) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury; and (3) the trial court's sentence violated the Petitioner's constitutional right to a jury. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In large part, I agree with the majority in this case. However, I must respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ conclusion reversing the judgment of the trial court based on its failure to exclude Tate’s and Blades’ testimony regarding their acquittals.

The Defendant, John Edward Winn, Jr., was placed on probation for eight years after pleading guilty to aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contests the trial court's evidentiary rulings during the revocation hearing and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new hearing.

The defendant, Robin Lynn Cooper, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; rape, a Class B felony; aggravated rape, a Class A felony; especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; and three counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony. The convictions for the Class B felony kidnappings were merged into one count. The defendant was sentenced to life without parole as a repeat violent offender for the rape, aggravated rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, and three convictions of aggravated kidnapping and to a concurrent sentence of twelve years at thirty percent for attempted second degree murder. On appeal, he argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court erred in admitting evidence; the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant a continuance; and the presence of his parole officer's folder on the witness stand violated a court order that the State could not mention that he was on parole. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.