APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Terna Hatten, appeals the five-year sentence he received after pleading guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He argues that the length of the imposed sentence was too long and that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence beyond the minimum of three years. After review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendants in its suit filed on the theory of equitable subrogation. The trial court found that the undisputed facts established that plaintiff acted as a volunteer and proved no fraud, accident or mistake. We affirm.

The defendant, Antonio Dante Edmondson, was convicted at a jury trial of two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery, Class C felonies. He received two five-year terms to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction, for an effective sentence of ten years. In this appeal, he claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) that the trial court erred in admitting proof of other robberies under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), and (3) that he was improperly sentenced. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, James Beasley, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denying him postconviction relief from his convictions for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-403; 39-14-103; 39- 14-105(1). He was sentenced to fifteen years and eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served concurrently as a Range III offender. The petitioner contends the trial court erred in denying him post-conviction relief based upon the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that no error exists and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this case, the plaintiff wife filed for divorce from the defendant husband in December of 2003.
The husband collaterally attacked the validity of the wife’s previous divorce from her second husband in 1985, asserting that the wife was still married to her second husband. The trial court
bifurcated the proceedings to determine the validity of the parties’ marriage. After the hearings on
this issue, the trial court found that the wife’s efforts at service of process on her second husband
during her second divorce had been insufficient, and ruled that any subsequent marriage was
therefore invalid. After conducting further hearings as to the parties’ property, in its order on
division of assets, the court found that a bank account held jointly by the parties was the sole
property of the husband, and it awarded each party a one-half interest in real property located in
Humphreys County, Tennessee. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings in the circuit court.

We granted review in this case to determine whether UT Medical Group, Inc. presented a justiciable case or controversy to the trial court when it alleged that Dr. Vogt anticipatorily breached an employment contract covenant. Because the record fails to show that Dr. Vogt committed an anticipatory repudiation of the non-competition covenant found in her employment agreement, Dr. Vogt is entitled to summary judgment. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for the entry of an order dismissing the case.

The Appellant, Freddie McCullough, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his request for non-incarcerative alternative sentences. McCullough pled guilty to one count of statutory rape and one count of sexual battery, both Class E felonies, and, under the terms of the plea agreement, received one-year sentences for each conviction with the trial court determining the manner of service of the sentences. The agreement also allowed McCullough to seek judicial diversion. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered McCullough to serve concurrent terms of sixty days in the workhouse on each one-year sentence, followed by one year of probation. On appeal, McCullough argues that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion or, in the alternative, total probation. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We accepted a question of law certified by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to determine whether the absolute litigation privilege applies to what may be defamatory communications made by an attorney prior to a proposed judicial proceeding when the communications are directed at recipients unconnected with the proposed proceeding. We hold that an attorney is privileged to publish what may be defamatory information prior to a  proposed judicial proceeding even when the communication is directed at recipients unconnected with the proposed proceeding. In order for the privilege to apply, (1) the communication must be made by an attorney acting in the capacity of counsel, (2) the communication must be related to the subject matter of the proposed litigation, (3) the proposed proceeding must be under serious consideration by the attorney acting in good faith, and (4) the attorney must have a client or identifiable prospective client at the time the communication is published.

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to six of her children based upon the persistence of conditions that led to removal of the children from Mother’s care by the Department of Children’s Services and upon finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We affirm.

The Defendant, Kenneth C. Dailey, III, pleaded guilty to second degree murder and reserved a certified question of law regarding the admissibility of his statements of confession to the crime. Disagreeing with the trial court, the prosecutor, and the defense that the question was dispositive of the case, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal. We hold that, on the record before us, the certified question is dispositive of the case. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the Court of Criminal Appeals for its review of the certified question on its merits.

The petitioner, Demarcus Smith, pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his “petition for writ of habeas corpus to correct illegal sentence.” He contends his sentence is illegal because a Range I, standard offender cannot be required to serve one hundred percent before release eligibility.  After review, we conclude the judgment is facially valid and the summary dismissal is affirmed.

We granted review to answer two questions: (1) whether the trial court erred by dismissing a petition for post-commitment relief from a probation violation in juvenile court; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred by dismissing the appeal as moot because the Petitioner had reached the  age of nineteen. Because an oral directive by the juvenile court placing a minor under house arrest is not a valid court order, the trial court erred by dismissing the petition for  post-commitment  relief. Because a probation violation in juvenile court may have adverse consequences after the completion of a term of commitment, the doctrine of mootness does not apply. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the order of juvenile commitment is set aside.

This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee suffered a permanent psychological injury while working, and awarded seventy percent (70%) permanent partial vocational disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed that ruling, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings that the employee received a permanent psychological injury and that the award of seventy percent disability to the body as a whole is excessive. Also, the employer contends that the trial court erred in awarding the payment of past and future medical treatment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Eric Berrios, was charged with one count of possession with intent to sell or  deliver more than three hundred grams of cocaine. After the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the cocaine seized during the traffic stop, the State was granted an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the suppression of the evidence. We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the officer’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional seizure and, if so, whether the defendant’s consent to search the vehicle was sufficiently attenuated from that illegal act. Because the seizure violated constitutional safeguards and because the consent to search was not sufficiently attenuated from the violation, we affirm the suppression of the evidence. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had not had a meaningful return to work, and awarded twenty percent (20%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed that ruling, contending that the award should have been “capped” in accordance with Tenn. Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) (Supp. 2004) and that the Court erred by accrediting the testimony of Dr. Fishbein over that of Dr. Talmage. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified herein.

The appellant, Michael Ray Bates, was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of four counts of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine and received an effective ten-year sentence to be served in a community corrections program. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the appellant’s community corrections sentence and ordered him to serve his ten-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the revocation of his community corrections sentence and the imposition of confinement. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2004, the plaintiff, Michael Wilhelm, filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging an injury to his back and left hip. In response, the defendant, Krogers d/b/a Peyton’s Southeastern, denied the claim, asserting that the injuries did not arise out of his employment. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court awarded the plaintiff a 35% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the judgment. Because, however, the injuries do not qualify as work-related and an earlier workers’ compensation settlement bars recovery, the judgment must be reversed and the case dismissed.

We accepted review of this case to decide whether a tenured university professor whose employment by the State was wrongfully terminated may recover back pay and lost benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-8-304. While the trial court initially found there was no statutory authority to grant monetary damages, the plaintiff was awarded back wages, lost benefits, and interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Because there is no statutory authority for the award, however, the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the cause dismissed.

The petitioner, Brandon Roland, who was convicted of first degree murder and theft over $10,000, sought post-conviction relief from the Rhea County Circuit Court, which denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner presents several issues of the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

An inmate convicted of rape of a child filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, asking the Chancery Court to find that he was entitled to earn sentence reduction credits so he could be released from prison before the end of his fifteen year sentence. The Chancery Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the statute under which he was convicted required him to serve 100% of his sentence, undiminished by any sentence reduction credits. We affirm.

This is the second appeal of a divorce case. In the first appeal, this Court determined that the trial court erred in the valuation and distribution of the parties’ marital residence, and concluded that  the equity in the marital residence should be divided equally between the parties. The cause was remanded to the trial court to consider a method of payment. Before the matter was considered by the trial court on remand, the parties agreed to sell the property. After the property was sold, they divided the proceeds equally. The wife then filed a petition in the trial court disputing the amount she received. She also sought post-judgment interest from the date of the final divorce decree. The trial court denied the wife’s petition. The wife now appeals for a second time. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a medical negligence case in which a jury verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees and against Defendant/Appellant Hospital. The Hospital appeals on numerous grounds including: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing certain evidence in alleged contravention of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.05 and 37.03, (2) whether the trial court erred in not granting the Hospital’s motion for new trial on the grounds of alleged inappropriate and inflammatory comments and arguments by opposing counsel; and (3) whether there is material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Finding no error, we affirm.

The defendant, James David May, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to one count of jail escape, a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to three years and six months in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the imposition of incarceration, arguing that it would be more appropriate to sentence the defendant to community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial in Knox County Criminal Court, the defendant was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to twenty years in prison on the rape of a child conviction and eight years in prison on each aggravated sexual battery conviction. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty-six years. On appeal, we affirmed the convictions but remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing because the trial court failed to make appropriate findings concerning consecutive sentencing. State v. James Vanover, No. E 2005-01192-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 521496, at *5-*6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2006). The second sentencing hearing was held in June 2006, at which the trial court again imposed consecutive sentences. The defendant appeals, alleging that the trial court improperly applied consecutive sentences. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Claims Commission awarded 94% permanent partial disability to the employee and commuted the award to a lump sum. The employee’s position is that she is permanently and totally disabled. We agree with the position of the employee. Accordingly, we award the employee permanent total disability benefits and reverse the communation of the award to a lump sum.