APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Randy Bernard Mitchell, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his case and for failing to fully explain the ramifications of his guilty plea. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Danny Ray Thornhill, appeals from the order of the Blount County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In May of 2006, the Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction. His sentence was suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation. Approximately four months later, the trial court issued a violation of probation warrant. After a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation and ordered that his original three-year sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, John Kenneth Hayes, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering that he serve 120 days in confinement prior to being placed on community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the community corrections service of the defendant’s sentence.

The Appellant, Rodney Smith, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Thomas Len Profitt, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his 2007 petition for habeas corpus relief. In response, the State moved this court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20 to summarily affirm the criminal court’s order. Because the record shows that the Rule 20 terms for summary affirmance are met, we grant the motion and affirm the criminal court’s order.

Defendant doctor appeals an award of summary judgment to the State in this action brought pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in connection with the sale and administration of flu vaccine. The trial court found the defendant doctor guilty of two hundred seventy (270) violations of the TCPA for vaccinating fifty-four (54) patients with serum manufactured for the previous flu season while representing it would protect them in the upcoming flu season; awarded restitution to the patients, imposed a civil penalty of $50 per violation, and awarded $10,500 in attorney’s fees and costs for investigation; and issued permanent injunction prohibiting doctor from selling or administering a flu vaccine manufactured for a previous flu season. On appeal, defendant doctor contends he established that two material facts were in dispute. We affirm.

A jury convicted the Defendants, Justin Bradley Haynie, Jonathan Anthony Morris, and Judson F. Ouzts, of one count of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of alprazolam with the intent to deliver, a Class D felony. Defendants Haynie and Morris were both sentenced to eight years and ten months for the cocaine conviction and to a concurrent, two-year sentence for the alprazolam conviction. Defendant Ouzts was sentenced to eight years for the cocaine conviction; in all other regards, his sentence was the same. Each Defendant was ordered to complete his sentence through the Community Corrections Program after serving part of the sentence in the county jail. In this appeal, the Defendants collectively raise three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendants’ pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of Defendant Ouzts’s vehicle; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions; and (3) whether the State’s closing argument was improperly prejudicial. Defendant Ouzts raises two additional issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony amounting to a legal conclusion; and (2) whether a juror’s bias required a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court on the cocaine convictions, but we reverse the judgments entered on the alprazolam convictions and remand for resentencing and proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal arises out of an action for declaratory judgment brought by an insurer. The insurer  asked the court to determine whether its homeowners’ and personal liability umbrella policies afforded coverage and required defense of a tort action filed against its insured. The tort action involved an accident that occurred at the site of an oil well, which was owned and operated by a partnership in which the insured parties were partners. The insureds’ insurance policies excluded coverage for losses arising out of their “business pursuits.” The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the insureds and ordered the insurer to defend and indemnify the insureds in the underlying tort action. For the following reasons, we reverse.

This case was filed as a nursing home neglect case. The issue before the Court relates to the enforceability of an arbitration agreement signed during the nursing home admissions process by the holder of a durable power of attorney. The trial court denied the appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. It held that the arbitration agreement was beyond the authority of the attorney-in-fact, and, therefore, it did not reach questions related to the capacity of the decedent to execute the durable power of attorney; nor did it address the unconscionability of the agreement. We reverse the trial court as to its ruling on the authority of the attorney-in-fact and remand for a hearing and decision on the other issues not previously reached below.

A contractor who was a partner in a subdivision development venture sold his interest to the other partners for $175,000. He subsequently filed a complaint against them alleging that they had deliberately taken advantage of his weak financial and physical condition to force him out the partnership. His complaint included claims for violation of fiduciary duty, duress and fraud. The trial court dismissed the contractor’s claim on summary judgment. We affirm.

In 1988, the Petitioner, Pervis Payne, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit first degree murder. For the capital offenses, the jury imposed sentences of death. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years confinement for the non-capital conviction. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10 (Tenn. 1990), aff’d by, 501 U.S. 808,  111 S. Ct. 2597 (1991). The Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief which pursuit was unsuccessful. See Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State, No. 02C01-9703-CR-00131 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 15, 1998), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Jun. 8, 1998). On September 7, 2006, the Petitioner filed a motion to compel testing of evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the motion on March 29, 2007. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellants, Charles Thomas Lard, II, and Doreen Rebeca Gates Lard, each pled guilty in the Tipton County Circuit Court to possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana with intent to deliver and to the manufacture of one-half ounce or more of marijuana, both Class E felonies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Lards reserved the following certified question for consideration by this court on appeal: whether the trial court erred in denying their respective motions to suppress evidence and statements obtained by the police after a search of their home, based upon its finding that the Lards knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search. After thorough consideration of the arguments of the parties and the record on appeal, we affirm.

The defendant, Leodish Coe, pled guilty to fourth offense driving under the influence (DUI) and reserved a certified question of law. The question presented for review is whether the indictment properly charged a fourth offense DUI and whether the defendant’s present offense constitutes a fourth offense DUI under Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403. After review, we conclude the answer to both questions is affirmative and affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The petitioner, Jose Ramirez, pled guilty to aggravated assault and the trial court, pursuant to a plea agreement, sentenced him to a three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had filed his petition outside the one-year statute of limitations period. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A manufacturer of infant formula entered into a contract with the State of Tennessee to furnish large quantities of its products to retailers for the federally-funded WIC program. The contract included a cash rebate which the manufacturer agreed to pay the State for each can furnished, to offset the cost of administering the program. After operating under the contract for four years, the manufacturer unilaterally decided to reduce the size of the cans it was providing, and it asked the state to reduce the rebate proportionally. The State refused, citing a provision in the contract that precluded rebate reductions. The manufacturer then filed an administrative claim, asking for a $1.2 million refund of its alleged overpayment of rebates. The Claims Commissioner granted Summary Judgment to the State. We affirm the Commissioner’s judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Tennessee Claims Commission Affirmed
 

The defendant, Heath Alan Womble, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell a schedule II drug, a class B felony, possession with the intent to sell a schedule III drug, a class D felony, and possession of a schedule IV drug, a class A misdemeanor, and received an effective total sentence of nine years and six months. The trial court denied his application for alternative sentencing and ordered that his sentence be served in confinement. He appeals the manner of service of his sentence, particularly the denial of community corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a bench trial, Defendant, Michael D. Boon, was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, to be suspended after serving forty-eight hours in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and contends that the admission of certain testimony violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Napoleon James Moore (alias), pled guilty to and was convicted of attempted possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony. In accordance with his plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years in the Department of Correction. The manner of service of the sentence was left to the discretion of the trial court. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying probation. Following our review, we affirm the sentence of confinement ordered by the trial court.

The defendant, Mario Andre McElrath, was convicted by an Obion County jury of attempted sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class B felony, and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction and a fine of $2000. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the State’s violation of the rule of sequestration and in finding that the Drug-Free School Zone Act included criminal attempt as an offense that triggers increased sanctions. We conclude that these claims are without merit. However, based upon our plain error review, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the Drug-Free School Zone Act to enhance the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.

The Appellant, Gary Aldridge, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Jeffrey Hopkins, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his confession. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Anthony Jerome Nichols, was indicted for one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment. He was convicted of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault and assault. The trial court merged the aggravated assault and attempted second degree murder convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years, and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the remaining assault conviction. The sentences were set to run concurrently. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder and that the trial court abused its discretion by enhancing his sentence. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial Defendant, Steven Allen Jones, was found guilty of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder and (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to the punishment for first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the result that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but respectfully, I disagree with the holding that the habeas corpus petition was filed in an appropriate court.

Petitioner, James Polk, appeals from the dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief. Because Petitioner has presented this Court an inadequate brief and has improperly attempted to seek post-conviction relief in a case for the second time, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.