APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Halbert B. Dodd, II, was indicted on two counts of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated assault. The defendant applied for pretrial diversion and the prosecutor denied the defendant’s application. The trial court granted the defendant’s writ of certiorari and determined that the prosecutor had not abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. The defendant’s motion for an interlocutory appeal was granted. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the prosecutor had not abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion and that the prosecutor’s abuse of discretion was evidenced by his: (1) characterization of the defendant’s past behavior as a “history of criminal behavior”; (2) failure to consider evidence which tended to show that the defendant was amenable to correction; (3) reliance on the defendant’s failure to admit guilt; and (4) failure to consider all factors favorable to diversion. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the order of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the conclusion of the majority that upholds the determination of the trial court that the defendant’s May 11, 2005, statement was admissible. While I recognize the difficulty of securing an attorney qualified to represent the defendant in this first degree felony murder case, I believe that the nearly two-month gap between his arrest and his confession to the offenses compels our concluding that the confession was inadmissible.

I concur in the result reached by the majority; however, I depart slightly from the majority’s chosen pathway to those results. Specifically, I would hold that the issues raised on appeal were precluded by the absence of a timely motion for new trial rather than by their absence from such a motion.

The defendant, Jeffrey D. Allen, was convicted by a Crockett County jury of first degree felony murder, criminally negligent homicide, facilitation of attempted first degree murder, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, he argues that the sequestered jury was improperly separated and that the trial court erred by not suppressing his statement to police, ruling a witness unavailable, admitting prior bad act evidence, and allowing improper opinion evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form to reflect that the defendant received a life sentence for his first degree murder conviction.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee alleged that he sustained injuries to his back and neck. He reported two separate injuries, about a month apart, that occurred in different counties. The employer accepted the back injury as compensable, but denied the neck injury. The trial court found both the back and neck injuries to be compensable, that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that venue was proper in the county of the first injury. The employer has appealed, alleging the trial court’ findings were in error.1 We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner, Troy Tackett, pled guilty to one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court ordered him to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. 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 reliance on plaintiff’s experts, the trial court granted defendant doctor’s motion for partial summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim pertaining to defendant’s failure to admit plaintiff into the hospital. The trial court later granted the defendant doctor summary judgment on the remaining malpractice claims finding that the plaintiff’s medical expert proof previously relied upon by defendant failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115. We reverse the grant of partial summary judgment on the failure to admit claim since the defendant doctor relied solely on plaintiff’s experts, whose testimony was later found inadmissable. We also reverse the summary judgment of the remaining malpractice claims since the defendant doctor never presented proof to negate an element of those claims. Consequently, the plaintiff had no duty to create issues of fact at the summary judgment phase.

Appellant, David Scott Winfrey, pled guilty in Sumner County to twenty-nine Class A misdemeanors consisting of one count of aggravated criminal trespass, one count of stalking, thirteen counts of harassment, and fourteen counts of violation of an order of protection. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction. In addition, the trial court ordered Appellant to serve ten of his violation of an order of protection sentences consecutively to each other, with the remaining sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court based the imposition of the consecutive sentences on Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113(g). On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, in ordering incarceration above time already served, and in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we find no error with the length of the sentences imposed. However, we have determined that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113(g) authorizes sentences for violation of an order of protection to run consecutively to other convictions stemming from the same underlying facts, as opposed to authorizing sentences for violation of an order of protection to run consecutively to each other. Therefore, we vacate the sentences imposed by the trial court and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

The defendant, Candice Parrish, pled guilty to theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony. Following her guilty plea, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of four years but granted her request for judicial diversion. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was found to be in violation of her diverted probationary sentence, and, following a sentencing hearing, the trial court removed the defendant from judicial diversion and sentenced her to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court erred in ordering a sentence of total confinement. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm.

The defendant, Wendi Nicole Garrison, was found guilty as charged of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to sixteen years as a violent offender. On appeal, she argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction; the trial court erred in failing to charge the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; and the trial court erred in denying a new trial based on the composition of the jury. After careful review, we find that plain error exists in the omission of jury instruction for the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. We are, therefore, compelled to remand for a new trial.

An inspector cited an entertainer and the sexually oriented business in which she worked for violating an ordinance governing certain requirements for entertainers and businesses engaging in sexually oriented entertainment. The Metropolitan Sexually Oriented Business Licensing Board upheld the citations and fined the entertainer and the business $500 each. They appealed and the chancery court affirmed. They now appeal to the Court of Appeals. We find that the board did not have authority to assess the fine. We affirm the board and the chancery court’s finding that the ordinance was violated, and since the board has authority to impose other sanctions, we remand the matter to the chancery court with instructions to return the matter to the board.

Following a jury trial, Defendants, J. C. Fair and Krederick Fair, were convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. Each Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender, to eighteen years. On appeal, both Defendants argue (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support their conviction of aggravated robbery; (2) that the trial court erred in denying Defendants’ motions for a mistrial; and (3) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury. Defendant J. C. Fair also argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment against him on the basis of prosecutorial vindictiveness and that the trial court erred in certain evidentiary rulings. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, Margaret Gail Moore, while working as a fuel clerk at a truck stop, was attacked and beaten during a robbery, suffering multiple injuries. Ms. Moore sought permanent disability benefits for physical and mental injuries. She presented testimony of two evaluating physicians, who estimated her total anatomical impairment at 62% to 82% to the body as a whole. The employer, Mountain Empire Oil Company, presented testimony of two evaluating physicians who estimated her impairment to be 14.5%. The trial court awarded 93% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by basing its award on the testimony of the evaluating physicians presented by the employee.1 We affirm the judgment.

A Monroe County jury convicted the defendant, Dennis Burnett, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to eighteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by: (1) refusing to grant a continuance based upon the defendant’s medical issues; (2) refusing to grant a mistrial after a State’s witness testified regarding information that had not been contained in his pretrial statements; (3) improperly informing the jury that a certain witness would testify when the trial court was aware that the witness was unavailable; and (4) refusing to grant a mistrial or call rebuttal witnesses after a perjured testimony. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the plaintiff’s negligence claim which arose from a motor vehicle accident with the defendant. Plaintiff first asserts that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff’s positive drug test to be admitted as evidence. Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court’s jury instructions were improper and that the jury’s verdict is not supported by the evidence. Reviewing plaintiff’s first assertion, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug test as evidence. Likewise, we find that the jury instructions were proper and that there is material evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a wrongful death case against a municipality. In 1987, the plaintiff’s teenage son was shot and killed by a police officer. The plaintiff sued the officer and the municipality, asserting claims under both federal and state law. Years of proceedings and delay ensued. By 2005, the only remaining claims were state law claims against the municipality. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed a motion for entry of judgment in the amount of $130,000, the maximum damage award under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

I write separately to state that I believe the issue is controlled by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24, particularly subsections (c), (e) and (f), wherein the respective rights and responsibilities of the appellant, the appellee and the trial court are stated.

The Defendant-Appellant, Latoya Lynn Townsend, pleaded guilty to facilitation to distribute cocaine, a Class C felony, and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class E felony. For the facilitation offense, she was sentenced to three years at Westate, a community based alternative to imprisonment. For the marijuana offense, she was sentenced to two years at Westate, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the facilitation offense, and ordered to pay a fine. The Defendant-Appellant, Tobias Toby Horton, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony, and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class E felony. For the cocaine offense, he was sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and he was ordered to pay a fine. For the marijuana offense, he was sentenced to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, which was to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the cocaine offense and his sentence for a prior probation violation. Townsend and Horton, as a part of their conditional plea agreements, attempted to reserve certified questions of law under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. In agreed orders filed contemporaneously with their judgment forms, they each set out the following certified question of law: whether the search of the residence leased by Townsend was unconstitutional in violation of Article I, section 7, of the Tennessee Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because the certified questions fail to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal and, therefore, it is dismissed.

This application for a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal concerns how an appealing party may use a trial court’s recording of a hearing. We grant the appellant’s Rule 10 application.¹ Furthermore, we reverse the chancellor’s June 5, 2009 order and remand the matter for the chancellor to rule on appellee’s objections and resolve the parties’ differences as to the content of the transcript or statement of the evidence.

The petitioner, Michael Lebron Anderson, was convicted of burglary of a building other than a habitation and was sentenced to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal involves a claim of tortious inducement to breach a non-compete covenant in an employment agreement. The plaintiff staffing agency employed the defendant therapists at a State residential care facility for severely disabled persons. The plaintiff agency staffed the facility under an exclusive contract which was set to expire by its own terms in June 2003. The therapists had executed restrictive covenants in their employment agreements with the plaintiff staffing agency under which they were prohibited from working at the State facility for one year after the termination of their employment with the plaintiff. The State requested bids to staff the facility under a new contract. Through the bidding process, the defendant staffing agency was awarded the contract. The defendant agency then met with the defendant therapists (who were incumbent employees), staffed through the plaintiff agency, and offered to hire them to continue working at the facility. The defendant staffing agency was aware of the non-compete covenants and agreed to indemnify the defendant therapists if the plaintiff staffing agency tried to enforce the covenants. The defendant therapists accepted positions with the defendant agency and continued working at the facility. The plaintiff agency filed this lawsuit against the individual defendant therapists and the defendant agency. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the non-compete covenants were enforceable, that the defendant therapists had breached their covenants, and that the defendant staffing agency had tortiously induced the individual defendant therapists to breach their employment contracts. The defendants now appeal. We reverse, concluding that, while the plaintiff agency had a legitimate protectable business interest, the non-compete covenants are not enforceable in light of the hardship to the defendant therapists and the adverse impact on the public interest.

The petitioner, Jerome Dance, appeals the Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted of two counts of sale of cocaine over .5 grams, Class B felonies, and one count of sale of cocaine less than .5 grams, a Class C felony. Subsequently, he was sentenced, as a Range II offender, to an effective term of thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. He specifically argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) object to an insufficient Notice of Enhancement Factors filed by the State; (2) file a motion for recusal of the trial judge; (3) adequately prepare for the sentencing hearing; (4) inform the petitioner of a plea offer and to adequately advise him that he would not be sentenced as a Range I offender if he proceeded to trial; and (5) pursue a Rule 11 application to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court or to properly withdraw. Following review of the record, the denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Jimmy Heard, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.