APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an action for negligence and wrongful death filed against a nursing home by the administrator of decedent patient’s estate. The trial court denied Defendant nursing home’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon finding decedent patient was not competent to execute the power of attorney pursuant to which decedent’s daughter had executed an arbitration agreement with Defendant. Defendant appeals. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I write separately to state my position in this case. I concur with the views of my colleagues as expressed in the majority and concurring opinions that the defendant is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. My decision in this case would have been different had the trial court imposed this sentence on the defendant after a trial. However, because this was a voluntary guilty plea agreement, and not a sentence imposed by the trial court following a trial, the defendant waived any habeas corpus relief he may have been entitled to receive because the sentence he bargained for was within the statutory minimum and statutory maximum for the offense.

We granted permission to appeal in this habeas corpus case to address the legality of a pleabargained sentence requiring the defendant, being sentenced for two cocaine offenses committed in a school zone, to serve twenty-two years of a Range I sentence at “100%.” The defendant alleges that his sentence is illegal because it makes no provision for the possibility of early release on parole. The trial court denied relief. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. We hold that the defendant’s sentence is not illegal, and he is therefore not entitled to habeas corpus relief. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

A Campbell County Criminal Court Jury found the appellant, Crystal Miranda Kirby, guilty of the first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery of Jonathan Pierce. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life, twenty-one years, and eighteen years, respectively. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's pretrial ruling on the admissibility of a statement she made in the course of plea negotiations and the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining her conviction of first degree premeditated murder. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court; however, we remand for an entry of a judgment reflecting that the conviction for second degree murder is merged into the conviction for first degree murder.

The defendant, Johnny Tate, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, Class A felonies; two counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies; and aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. He was subsequently sentenced to two sentences of life without parole, to two sentences of twelve years, and to a sentence of six years for the respective convictions. Further, the trial court ordered that the two sentences of life be served consecutively to each other, with the other sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, he contends that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction.

The defendant, Abron Spraggins, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of thirteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that felony reckless endangerment was a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as charged in the indictment; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred by enhancing the defendant’s aggravated assault sentence and ordering that the aggravated assault and reckless endangerment sentences be served consecutively. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment entered by a city court following a traffic citation. The circuit court found that the defendant had not violated the city ordinance alleged to have been violated, but the court sua sponte determined that the defendant had violated a different city ordinance. The defendant appeals. We reverse and remand.

James W. Gentry, Jr., Margaret A. Gentry ("the Gentrys"), Paul Mallchok, and Lowrance Mallchok sued Todd Clark McCain, Christy McCain ("the McCains"), and the City of Chattanooga ("the City") seeking, in part, a declaration of ownership with regard to a right-of-way known as Manchester Avenue, and a restraining order preventing the McCains from entering the right-of-way. After a hearing, the Trial Court denied the Gentrys' request for a temporary injunction to bar the McCains and the City from the right-of-way and further held that Manchester Avenue had been dedicated, the City had accepted the dedication, the City had never formally abandoned the portion of Manchester Avenue at issue in this case, and that the City held title to the Manchester Avenue right-of-way as a public right-of-way. The Gentrys appeal to this Court claiming that the Trial Court erred in denying them title to the Manchester Avenue right-of-way. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the Trial Court's refusal to terminate the parental rights of Rickie T. ("Father") to his one year old daughter, Anna S. (the "Child"). In June 2008, Rebecca S. ("Mother") became pregnant with the Child. Several months before the Child was born, Mother terminated all communication with Father, notwithstanding Father's numerous attempts to remain in contact with Mother. Shortly after Mother gave birth, she saw Father's sister at a store and told her that she, i.e. Mother, had suffered a miscarriage. In reality, Mother had given the Child up for adoption through Bethany Christian Services of East Tennessee ("Bethany Christian"). Mother also had lied to Bethany Christian and, because of this deception, Bethany Christian was unaware of Father's true identity. Father learned that Mother had given birth to the Child after reading a Notice in the local newspaper stating that Bethany Christian had filed a petition to terminate parental rights and that his parental rights were about to be terminated. Father immediately notified Bethany Christian of his existence and retained counsel. Based on stipulated facts, Bethany Christian and Father filed competing motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted Father's motion after finding that there was no clear and convincing evidence of grounds to terminate his parental rights. Bethany Christian appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant appeals the trial court's order denying her motion to transfer the case based on the relocation of the parties. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

The defendant, Johnathan Norman, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw guilty pleas that he entered to charges of (1) being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, a Class E felony, and (2) unlawful possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), a Class A misdemeanor. After careful review, we conclude that the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas was not timely, and we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

This is the second appeal from the Trial Court's altering the custodial arrangement of the parties' minor child. In the first trial, the Trial Court excluded testimony of the child's stepfather, on the grounds that the mother had not properly noticed the Court and party that the stepfather was a witness. On the first appeal, this Court remanded this case to the Trial Court and directed that the stepfather's testimony be allowed. On remand, the stepfather testified at length, but it was revealed during his examination that he had read the entire evidentiary transcript of the first trial. The Trial Court then ruled that the stepfather's testimony should be stricken, but went ahead and considered his testimony and essentially determined that his testimony did not alter the weight of the evidence as found in the first trial, and affirmed the Court's original award of granting custody to the father. On appeal, we affirm.

We granted permission to appeal in this case in order to consider whether Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 permits a defendant to amend his motion for new trial after the hearing on the initial motion has been conducted and an order denying the motion has been entered. In this case, newly-appointed defense counsel filed several pleadings seeking to add grounds in support of a new trial after the hearing on the original motion for new trial had been held and an order denying a new trial had been entered. The trial court considered the new grounds and subsequently entered a second order denying a new trial. The defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals refused to consider any issues raised after the trial court denied the original motion for new trial. As to the issues that were raised in that motion, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the defendant is not entitled to relief. We have concluded that trial courts should not permit the defense to amend its motion for new trial after the new trial hearing has been held and an order denying a new trial has been entered. Further, we have reviewed an issue the defendant properly preserved and have reviewed for plain error the issues the defendant failed to preserve but argues to this Court. We hold that the defendant is not entitled to relief on any of these issues and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Petitioner, a prisoner, filed a Common Law Writ of Certiorari in the Chancery Court, alleging that he had been illegally disciplined while incarcerated. Respondents agreed that the writ should be granted and thereafter they filed a Motion to Dismiss the action. The Trial Judge dismissed the writ and petitioner has appealed. On appeal, petitioner argues that the allegations set forth in his petition must be taken as true under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The factual allegations pled by petitioner, when taken as true, state a cause of action. We therefore vacate the Order of Dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

This is a divorce case. Father/Appellant appeals the trial court's decision to designate Mother/Appellee the primary residential parent of the parties' two minor children, and the trial court's refusal to enter an order restraining the Mother's paramour from being around the children. This Court concludes that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's factual findings, and that the custody decision is not contrary to the children's best interests. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant/Father appeals from the trial court’s finding that he was in contempt for failure to pay child support. After reviewing the record, we find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact. The trial court’s finding of contempt is reversed.

A Campbell County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Clois Dean Asbury, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), sixth offense, and violating the Tennessee implied consent law. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him on either count because he was not specifically identified in court, and (2) the trial court's admission of the appellant's medical records, which revealed the appellant had a blood alcohol content level of 0.26 percent, violated his right to confront witnesses against him. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Mother and Father filed separate petitions to modify custody, both alleging a different material change of circumstances. The trial court entered a new parenting plan with custody provisions identical to those in a former parenting plan, but it failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because the trial court failed to meet the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Rachel M. Clawson ("the Decedent") was an employee of Summers-Taylor, Inc. ("the Employer") when she was killed in a tragic automobile-pedestrian accident. A vehicle driven by Michael Burrow veered off Highway 91 in Carter County and struck her. She had concluded her job duties for the day and was at the rear of her personally-owned truck visiting with co-workers and talking on a cell phone. The Decedent's truck was parked on the side of Highway 91 in an area approved by the Employer for employee parking. Michael Clawson and Sherry Clawson, the Decedent's parents ("the Parents"), filed this wrongful death action against Burrow and the Employer. The Employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that on the undisputed facts the Decedent's death arose out of and occurred in the course and scope of her employment. The trial court agreed and entered an order granting the Employer summary judgment. The Parents appeal. We affirm.

Cole Bryan Howell, III ("the Grandson"), is the son of Cole Bryan Howell, Jr. ("the Father"), who in turn is the son of Margaret Lyons Howell ("the Grandmother"). The Grandson inherited stock in Howell Nurseries, Inc. ("the Nursery") through the Grandmother's will, which left a block of stock to the Father for life and then to the Father's children. After the Father's death, the Grandson filed this stockholder's derivative action against all persons who acted as directors of the Nursery and the Nursery itself ("the Defendants"), claiming, in essence, that the directors had sold away all of the corporate assets, leaving him with a rather hollow inheritance. The trial court held that the Grandson did not have standing to challenge any transactions that preceded the Father's death because it was only after his death that the Grandson became the owner of the stock. The trial court ordered an accounting as to all monies handled after the Father's death, which the Defendants filed with the court. Over the Grandson's objections, the trial court, on the Defendants' motion, approved the accounting and dismissed the case in its entirety. The Grandson appeals. We vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Shawn R. Wilmoth ("the Buyer") approached Jimmy E. Holt about buying a building Mr. Holt owned jointly with his wife Betty L. Holt (collectively "the Sellers"). The Sellers advised they were only willing to sell the building if they could also sell the inventory from their lamp business that was stored in the building. The Buyer agreed to purchase the building and the inventory. The purchase of the inventory was accomplished through a promissory note in the amount of $250,000. Subsequently, the Buyer paid $150,000 toward the note but refused to pay the balance of $100,000. The Sellers filed suit to collect the balance owed on the note. In his answer and counterclaim, the Buyer alleged that Sellers represented the value of the goods to be $500,000, but that he only realized $65,000 through liquidation of the goods and that $65,000 was the true value of the inventory. The Buyer alleged that the figure he was given constituted an intentional misrepresentation and, when compared to the amount he recovered from the goods, amounted to a failure of consideration. The Buyer asked to recover damages that included the difference in the amount he paid on the note and the amount he realized out of the liquidation, that difference being $85,000. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that there was no intentional misrepresentation and dismissed the counterclaim. Nevertheless, the trial court refused to award the Sellers a recovery on the unpaid balance of the note. The court stated that it was leaving the parties where it found them. The Sellers appeal, raising issues; the Buyer, by way of his own issue, challenges the trial court's refusal to award him damages. We reverse and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of the Sellers and consider their prayer for prejudgment interest.

Stephen S. Patterson, II, filed a complaint against SunTrust Bank arising out of unauthorized charges made against his checking account with a debit card alleged to have been stolen. When SunTrust failed to timely respond to the complaint, Patterson moved for a default judgment. Following a hearing and the filing of briefs, the trial court granted the motion. The court later denied SunTrust's motion for relief from the court's order, which order recited that "[t]he plaintiff is granted a judgment by default." In the "judgment by default" order, the court had not addressed the plaintiff's request for damages. On a subsequent date, the case proceeded to a hearing on the issue of damages. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court awarded Patterson damages of $32,937.44. On appeal, SunTrust contends that the trial court erred in entering a default judgment and in failing to set aside that judgment. We vacate the trial court's final judgment. Case remanded for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns a billboard permit. The petitioner billboard owner applied to the respondent city for a permit to tear down and replace a grandfathered billboard. The city granted a permit for an indirectly illuminated billboard. The owner then built a billboard with a digital display face. The city revoked the owner’s permit because, inter alia, the sign actually constructed varied from the permit. The owner appealed to the city’s board of zoning appeals, which upheld the city’s revocation of the billboard permit. The billboard owner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking judicial review of the revocation. The trial court dismissed the billboard owner’s petition, finding that the city’s revocation of the permit was valid because the billboard erected by the owner was not covered by the permit. The billboard owner now appeals. We affirm.

The defendant, Larquietta Taylor-Fisher, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to DUI, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor; leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor; and three counts of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of two years, with thirty days to serve and the remainder of the time on supervised probation. In a timely appeal to this court, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the sentencing determinations of the trial court.