APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Billy Suddarth, Jr. and Angela Suddarth appeal the summary dismissal of their action, which was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the compulsory counterclaim rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the former action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois wherein the Suddarths were defendants, Household Commercial Financial Services, Inc. alleged the Suddarths breached a guaranty agreement by failing to pay a deficiency owing on the underlying credit agreement they had guaranteed. Household prevailed on the merits in the former action against the Suddarths. In the present action in the Circuit Court of Davidson County the Suddarths allege fraud, fraudulent inducement and civil conspiracy against Household and two other defendants concerning the guaranty agreement that was the subject of the former action in the United State District Court. The present claims by the Suddarths arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of Household's action in the United State District Court; therefore, it was compulsory that the Suddarths' claims be presented in the former action. The Suddarths failed to do so. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of this action.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother/Appellant appeals from the order of the Juvenile Court at Madison County terminating her parental rights. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the ground of persistence of conditions is not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, and that termination of her parental rights is not in the best interest of the minor child.  Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings, we affirm.

Joan Oates (“Plaintiff”) was employed by the Chattanooga Publishing Company (“Defendant”) for approximately twenty-three years. In January of 2004, Plaintiff was observed on Defendant’s security camera making obscene gestures with her middle finger toward the camera and then covering the security camera with a cup for a period of time. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that she was terminated because of a disability. Plaintiff also claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and malicious harassment while employed by Defendant. Plaintiff also sued for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.

The petitioner, Jonathan Ellis, appeals pro se from the Johnson County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for thirteen counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and resulting sentences of twenty-five years on each conviction to be served concurrently as a Range I, standard offender in the Department of Correction. He claims his judgments of conviction are void because they classify his release eligibility status at thirty percent in violation of statute. We conclude that four of the sentences are illegal. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment in part, reverse the judgment in part, and remand the case.

The defendant pled guilty to driving while under court order not to operate a motor vehicle because he had been declared an habitual motor offender. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years as a Career Offender. The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not granting him probation and in sentencing him as a career offender. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The State appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's dismissal of a presentment charging the defendant, Bradley Noble, with the rape of a five-year-old child at a day care center. The presentment charged the defendant, a former employee of the center, with digitally penetrating the victim's anus on an unspecified day in March 1999. In a subsequent bill of particulars, the State narrowed the time of the offense to between 3:20 and 5:29 p.m. on March 10, 1999. During the defendant's first trial, which ended in a mistrial, defense counsel revealed in opening arguments that he intended to prove that the defendant had not been alone with the victim during the time alleged in the bill of particulars. Following the mistrial, the State filed a "Superceding Bill of Particulars," which reverted back to the general time frame of the presentment. The defendant moved to dismiss the presentment, and the trial court granted the motion. We reverse the order of the trial court, reinstate the presentment, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

An Anderson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Adam F. Wester, of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant appeals, claiming (1) that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear about prior injuries to the victim; (2) that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence photographs of the victim's body; (3) that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the mens rea element of the crime; (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to give a special jury instruction on "accident"; (5) that the trial court erred by giving sequential jury instructions; and (6) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Shelby County terminated the employment of Eric Thomas and James Stroud. Upon writ or certiorari, the Shelby County Chancery Court reversed, and Shelby County appeals. We reverse.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Terrance Yves Smothers, was convicted by the Montgomery County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery, misdemeanor theft, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The Defendant received an effective twenty-year sentence for these convictions. The single issue presented for our review is whether the testimony of the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated. After a review of the record, we find that the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the accomplice's testimony and, therefore, reverse and dismiss the judgments of conviction.

Petitioner, Leonard Masonet, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the length of his sentence contravened the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 and was therefore void. The trial court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and Petitioner now appeals. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioner, Bruce M. Vann, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, contending that the trial court erred in finding that counsel rendered effective assistance at trial.  Upon review, we conclude that the sole issue raised by the petitioner on appeal has been waived for failure to support it with argument or citations to the appellate record. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The petitioner, Victor Thompson, appeals the denial of habeas corpus relief contending that: (1) his sentence was outside the applicable range and was, therefore, illegal; and (2) that the indictment was fatally defective. Upon review, we conclude that the defendant’s sentence was within the agreed range and that the remaining issue is waived, as it is raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the denial of habeas relief in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

A Roane County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Dennis D. Plemons, Sr., of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days with all but five days suspended. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence is insufficient. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Michael Ortiz, was found guilty by a Shelby County Jury of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, to wit: cocaine over 300 grams. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying: (1) his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle; and (2) his motion to suppress his statement given to police. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, A.T. Pruitt, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective in communicating to him or preparing him for trial, which resulted in him entering guilty pleas that were neither knowing or voluntary. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This is a direct appeal from the order of the trial court revoking the Defendant's probation and ordering him to serve his five-year sentence in the Department of Correction. The Defendant, Anthony Howard Skelton, raises two issues on appeal: 1) there was insufficient evidence to establish that he violated his probation, and 2) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the Defendant to serve his entire sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted the State’s application for permission to review this case pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 in order to determine the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110(c), which provides that failure to request a lesser-included offense instruction in writing waives the right to assign it as an issue in a motion for a new trial or on appeal. We conclude that section 40-18-110(c) renders the omission of instruction on lesserincluded offenses subject to the general rule that issues concerning instructions are considered waived in the absence of objection or a written request, unless they contain plain error. Under section 40-18-110(c), even absent a written request, the trial judge may still charge the jury on applicable lesser-included offenses and an appellate court may still review a lesser-included offense issue under the doctrine of plain error. We conclude, however, that the failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses in the present case does not constitute plain error. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

I agree with the majority that this case is not properly before this court for an appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 and that it does not qualify as an extraordinary appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. I write separately because it is my view that the dismissal of the state appeal might imply that evidence obtained from a vehicle's event data recorder (the air bag sensor module) is generally inadmissible.

The defendant, James H. Carter, pled guilty to two counts of burglary, Class D felonies; two counts of vandalism over $1,000 but less than $10,000,Class D felonies; and one count of resisting arrest a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court imposed Range I sentences of four years for each burglary, which were to be served consecutively, and four years for each vandalism, to be served concurrently. The six-month sentence for resisting arrest was also ordered to be served concurrently. The effective sentence is, therefore, eight years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by ordering his sentences for the two burglary convictions to be served consecutively. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

An Anderson County grand jury indicted the defendant, Shannon A. Holladay, for one count of vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, and one count of vehicular homicide by recklessness, a Class C felony. Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the air bag sensor module in the defendant’s car, which the Anderson County Criminal Court granted. The state appeals, contending that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. We dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

The Petitioner, Lorenzo Porter, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen his postconviction or, in the alternative, requesting habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Moreover, this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain a request for an appeal of a denial of a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition. Accordingly, we grant the state's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant, Alejandro Gonzalez, appeals a certified question of law following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine, within 1000 feet of a school, with intent to sell or deliver, an offense for which he received an eight-year sentence to be served in a community corrections program. The question certified for appeal is whether a Metro Nashville police officer had sufficient cause to search a grocery bag the defendant was carrying, in which the officer found 26 grams of cocaine. Because we hold that the search was lawful and that the fruits thereof were admissible, we affirm.

This is an election contest. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful candidates for office in a municipal election held on May 19, 2005. On June 3, 2005, they filed this election contest. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the special ten-day statute of limitations for election contests, which is set out in T.C.A. § 2-17-105. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs now appeal. We reverse, concluding that, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.01, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded from the computation of the time in which the plaintiff must file suit.

In this appeal, T.M.B.K. ("Mother") contends that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the initial child custody proceeding. After careful review of the evidence and applicable authorities, we hold that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction and the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. We futher hold that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding by clear and convincing evidence of a failure to remedy persistent conditions. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The petitioner, Jeremy D. Shivers, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective and that, as a result of counsel's deficient performance, his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed