APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Phillip Eugene Johnson, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of statutory rape and sexual battery and was sentenced to an effective term of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that prosecutorial misconduct caused the jury to render an adverse verdict. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Michael Bailey, was indicted on four counts of aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on all four counts. Because the four counts represented four different theories of prosecution for the same criminal episode, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced Defendant to thirty years as a career offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s decision to admit evidence during rebuttal of another robbery committed by Defendant, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of theft and assault and the trial court’s decision to allow the State to impeach Defendant with evidence of his thirteen prior convictions for aggravated robbery. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

This administrative appeal arises out of the termination of Officer Lenora Armstead’s (Officer Armstead) employment with the Memphis Police Department (the Department). The City took this action as a result of a public altercation between Officer Armstead and another off-duty police
officer. It found that Officer Armstead had violated DR-104 Personal Conduct and terminated her employment because of this violation and other disciplinary proceedings previously brought against her. The Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis (the Commission) reversed the City’s decision to terminate her employment because it found the action to be unreasonable. The City appealed to Shelby County Chancery Court, where the chancellor reversed the Commission’s decision, finding it to be arbitrary and capricious. We find that the City proved a violation of DR-104 but that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial and material evidence. We reverse and remand.

A small contractor entered into an oral agreement to install brick facades on new houses in a Mt. Juliet subdivision. He did brickwork on eleven houses pursuant to the agreement, and was paid in cash for the work on an irregular basis. Because he believed the other party to the agreement did not pay him in full, he walked off the job and brought suit for breach of contract. A bench trial in Circuit Court ultimately resulted in a net judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $397.50. He argued on appeal that the evidence showed that he was entitled to receive over $10,000 on his claim. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant, Clifford Bryant Johnson, was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery, a class B felony, and sentenced to nine years in prison as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant appeals his conviction, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the defendant’s conviction.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Vasquez and Garza are entitled to coram nobis relief. In my view, the impeachment evidence in this case does not merit coram nobis relief as to any of the defendants.

Our grant of the applications for permission to appeal filed by the State of  Tennessee and certain of the defendants was for the purpose of  determining (1) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to sell more than seventy pounds of marijuana within one thousand feet of a school zone; (2) whether the waiver of lesser-included offense instructions under  Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110 violates constitutional principles; and (3) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals applied the proper standard in affirming the grant of coram nobis relief to Vasquez and Garza, reversing the trial court, and denying the relief to Vasques,  Hernandez, and Alonzo. We conclude that the trial evidence was sufficient  to support the convictions and that the statutory waiver of the entitlement to complete jury instructions does not violate the right to a jury trial or the separation of powers principle. We also hold that Vasquez and Garza are entitled to a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence and that  Vasques, Hernandez, and Alonzo are not entitled to coram nobis relief. In consequence, the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeals are affirmed.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the employee benefits based on permanent partial disability awards of fifty percent (50%) to each arm. On appeal, the employer contends that the trial court erred in making the fifty percent (50%) permanent, partial disability awards. The employee contends that she should be awarded damages for a frivolous appeal. We affirm, as modified, the judgment of the trial court.

At the time the deceased and plaintiff divorced, the deceased agreed to maintain the plaintiff as beneficiary of his life insurance policy with his employer. He subsequently left the employer, but returned to the employer and was issued another policy of life insurance on being re-employed, but made his then wife and his two children beneficiaries of that policy. Upon his death, plaintiff sued to enforce the terms of the Marital Dissolution Agreement, but the Trial Court refused and dismissed plaintiff’s action. On appeal, we hold that plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the second policy to the extent of the benefits agreed to under the terms of the first policy.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On this appeal, the sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred by failing to cap the recovery of the employee, Sherwood Dowd, at 2.5 times the medical impairment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1). The trial court found Mr. Dowd’s retirement, based, in part, upon his fear of re-injury, was reasonably related to his injury and awarded compensation amounting to four times his medical impairment rating. Finding the employer offered employment that Mr. Dowd had the ability to perform and
demonstrated a willingness to accommodate his medical restrictions, we find Mr. Dowd’s decision to retire on the basis of an apprehension of re-injury was, within the framework of the statute, unreasonable. We reverse.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer contends that the trial court erred by (1) finding that the employee suffered any vocational disability; and (2)finding that the employee was entitled to the twenty-five percent (25%) bad faith penalty for certain medical expenses. Finding that the evidence preponderates against the finding of any vocational disability in this case, we reverse the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits. Because the employee never asserted a claim for the bad faith penalty prior to the trial in this case, we reverse the award of the bad faith penalty. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Macon County Chancery Court, Reversed in part, Affirmed in part, and Remanded. JEFFREY S. BIVINS, SP. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J, and CLAYBURN PEEPLES, SP. J., joined. Richard Lane Moore, Moore, Rader, Clift & Fitzpatrick, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the Appellants, CNA Insurance Company and TRW Commercial Steering Division. William Joseph Butler, E. Guy Holliman, Farrar, Holliman & Butler, Lafayette, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Jason Key. MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Facts The Plaintiff, Jason Key ("Key"), was thirty years of age at the time of the trial in this action. He graduated from high school. He had learned some welding skills in high school. Otherwise, he had no other certificates, degrees, or special training. His work history consists primarily of physical labor, including farm work, welding at a factory, and production work at TRW Commercial Steering Division ("TRW"), one of the defendants in this action.1 Mr. Key's job with TRW required him to set up assembly lines and keep them running. On July 15, 23, Mr. Key was attempting to repair a machine on the assembly line. While he was repairing this machine, he was hit in the head with a steel bar approximately five-eighths of an inch in diameter and between twelve and fourteen inches long. Key suffered a laceration to his forehead as a result of this accident. The laceration measured one inch or 2.2 centimeters in length. Key was taken to the emergency room where Dr. John Butcher treated him. Dr. Butcher irrigated the wound and used five stitches to close the cut. Dr. Butcher then released Key to return to work. Key returned to work the day following the accident. Key never missed a day of work as a result of the accident. Key subsequently requested additional medical care from TRW. As a result of that request, Dr. Roy Johnson, an occupational medical specialist, evaluated Key on November 13, 23. Dr. Johnson also referred Key to a plastic surgeon. On March 22, 24, Key was examined by Dr. J.D. Rosdeutscher, a plastic surgeon. Dr. Rosdeutscher examined Key and recommended surgery to revise the scar and remove a cyst that had developed. On April 7, 24, Dr. Rosdeutscher performed the surgery. Due to the size of the cyst, Dr. Rosdeutscher had to perform an open "complex closure" on the wound. Dr. Rosdeutscher felt Key made an excellent recovery. Key did complain of some sensation problems or numbness around the injury site. Dr. Rosdeutscher felt the issues were due to injury to the supraorbital nerve. The supraorbital nerve gets sensation to the forehead. Dr. Rosdeutscher testified that the supraorbital nerve is purely a sensory nerve. It does not provide any motor function. Therefore, it would not cause any loss of function in the muscles in the forehead. Dr. Rosdeutscher concluded that Key suffered a partial sensory loss, but this did not cause any functional impairment. Dr. Rosdeutscher also did not place any permanent restrictions on Key. Finally, Dr. Rosdeutscher opined that Key had no permanent impairment and that this nerve injury would not affect Key in any way vocationally. Key also saw Dr. Robert Landsberg, a board certified orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. Landsberg concurred with Dr. Rosdeutscher's diagnosis that Key suffered an injury to the supraorbital nerve. Dr. Landsberg opined that the nerve injury was permanent. In contrast to Dr. Rosdeutscher, Dr. Landsberg assigned Key seven percent (7%) impairment to the body as a whole due to his discomfort, numbness, and loss of sensation. 1Although CNA Insurance Co. also is a named defendant in this case, we will refer to both defendants as "TRW " for the sake of simplicity. 2

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers'
Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2005) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Employee appeals an award of 35% vocational disability to the left arm, and asserts that he is permanently and totally disabled. We vacate the judgment of the trial court, and remand for a new trial.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer contends that the trial court erred by (1) not excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Albert Brandon for lack of trustworthiness and for an opinion based upon unreliable principles and methodology; and (2) finding that the employee proved medical causation for the employee's medical condition. We affirm.

The defendant, Claude Thomas Davis, was convicted of driving under the influence, seventh offense (Class E felony); driving on a revoked license, third offense (Class A misdemeanor); and violation of the implied consent law (Class A misdemeanor) on October 26, 2004. He was sentenced to serve two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress all evidence gathered by law enforcement at his home which is also a place of business located on the parking lot where the driving offense occurred. We affirm the judgments from the trial court.

This is a post-divorce proceeding wherein Appellee sought to enforce the provisions of a marital dissolution agreement and Appellant sought to modify alimony and child support provisions because of an alleged change of circumstances. The trial court ruled that Appellant was intentionally underemployed and attributed income that was comparable to his income at the time of divorce. Finding that the evidence in the record does not support a finding of willful underemployment, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Came the defendant, Mark A. Schiefelbein, through counsel, and the State of Tennessee, through the attorney general, upon the defendant’s appeal from the judgments of the Williamson County Circuit Court, where a jury convicted the defendant of seven counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor.  Following extensive briefing, oral argument, and our review of the record and the applicable law, we modify the imposition of consecutive sentences but otherwise affirm the convictions and sentences.

The petitioner, Wendell Daniel Washington, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to nine counts of child rape and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping and, pursuant to the plea agreement, received an effective forty-five-year sentence to be served at one hundred percent. In this appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily plead guilty. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

This is a breach of contract case. The defendant equipment company sells and leases underground construction equipment. The plaintiff worked for the defendant company as an outside salesman with a sales territory. The plaintiff salesman operated under a verbal employment agreement and was paid a minimum weekly salary plus commissions. During his employment, the plaintiff actively marketed equipment to a customer in his sales territory, and the customer ultimately signed a lease for several pieces of equipment. Soon after the lease was executed, the plaintiff quit working for the defendant. Subsequently, he sought his commissions due on the lease. The defendant equipment company refused to pay the commissions, claiming that the plaintiff salesman was not due any commissions on the lease because he quit work before the customer made any payments on the lease. The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the commissions. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to commissions on the lease, but only with respect to one of the pieces of leased equipment. The plaintiff now appeals, arguing that he is entitled to commissions on two other pieces of equipment. We reverse, finding that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that the plaintiff was entitled to commissions for all three pieces of equipment.

Following a jury trial, Petitioner, Shannon Mayes, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v. Shannon Mayes, No. M2002-02091-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 49111, at *1-4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 15, 2003), perm. app denied (Tenn. May 3, 2004). Petitioner then brought a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court subsequently denied the petition. He now appeals that denial, arguing that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress his statement to police. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the defendant’s convictions. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant’s arrest was lawful.  Under the evidence at the suppression hearing, I believe that the defendant was not subject to a warrantless arrest because he was no longer at the “scene of a traffic accident” as contemplated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-7-103(a)(6) and that he was not otherwise subject to arrest for a misdemeanor committed in the officer’s presence or for a felony. See T.C.A. § 40-7-103(a)(1)-(3). I believe the defendant was at his home, where he was not subject to a warrantless arrest for misdemeanor driving under the influence. In this regard, I note that after the offense in this case, the law was changed to permit the warrantless arrest of an individual involved in an accident who has left the scene, provided the arrest takes place within four hours of the accident and the officer has probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence. See T.C.A. § 40-7-103(a)(10).  I do not believe this provision can apply in this case.

The Defendant, Carolyn J. Nobles, pled guilty to three counts of check forgeries, and a jury found her guilty of sixty-eight check forgeries. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, a Range I offender, to an effective sentence of seventeen years and six months. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions and that the trial court erred when sentencing her by denying her alternative sentencing and by ordering that some of her sentences run consecutively. Concluding there exists no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur fully in the majority opinion in this case, with the exception of the majority’s discussion of one issue. The majority notes that the executrix, Ms. Wood, was bound “to the exercise of that degree of diligence, prudence, and caution which a reasonably prudent, diligent, and
conscientious business [person] would employ in the management of [their] own affairs of a similar nature.” In re Estate of Inman, 588 S.W.2d 763, 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). The majority finds that the trial court implicitly determined that Ms. Wood acted in accordance with this standard, insofar as she was attempting to recoup the original investments made by her father in Revelation and Lowery Riggan Company. It is unclear whether the majority holds that the evidence
preponderates in favor of this implicit finding, because the majority then goes on to note that, in order to collaterally attack an estate that has been closed without appeal, Ms. Lowery would be required to make allegations in the nature of fraud, mistake, or the like, and no such allegations were made.¹

To the extent that the majority’s opinion can be read to find that the trial court correctly found that Ms. Wood acted in a reasonably prudent manner, I must disagree. Certainly she acted in good faith, and it appears that her investment decisions were similar to those made by her father prior to his death. But her investment decisions were nevertheless unwise and imprudent. The fact that the Decedent invested heavily in Revelation and Lowery Riggan Company does not authorize the executrix to continue such unwise investments with the estate assets entrusted to her care.

Nevertheless, I concur because, as noted by the majority, Lowery’s allegations are insufficient to collaterally attack an estate that has been closed.

¹“An order or decree rendered on the final settlement of a personal 1 representative is not subject to collateral attack, except where there is fraud, misrepresentation, accident, or mistake, or where the court acted without jurisdiction or the order or decree was wholly void.” 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 868 (1998) (footnotes omitted).

Appellant challenges the trial court's judgment dismissing Appellant's claims against the Executrix of her father's estate and enforcing the agreement made by the Appellant with her siblings to share equally in the net assets of her father's estate.  We affirm.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee Michael Shane Bost argues that the trial court erred in denying him benefits based on his failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201 (Supp. 2003). We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for entry of a judgment awarding the benefits due employee.

 The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer in this workers’ compensation case, finding that the statute of limitations bars the employee’s claim and that the savings statute provides no relief to the employee. We hold that the employee’s complaint for workers’ compensation benefits is barred by the statute of limitations. We further hold that the employee failed to file his complaint within the time allowed by the savings statute. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.