APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a direct appeal as of right from jury verdict convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and theft of property. The Defendant, Lester James Farris, Jr., was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective twenty year sentence. The Defendant argues three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to law enforcement officers; (2) there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the three offenses for which he was convicted; and (3) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves an intrafamily transaction in real property. A now-deceased owner of a piece of commercial property held by tenancy by the entireties agreed to sell it to his nephew in a handshake transaction. The nephew made a $10,000 down payment, began paying off the balance in monthly installments, and made improvements to the property. After the seller died, his widow filed a complaint for declaratory judgment asking the court to declare the rights of the parties with regard to the real property. Although the trial court found there was indeed an agreement between the uncle and the nephew to sell the land to the nephew, the court declined to require the widow to effectuate the contract, not because she had not agreed to the sale, but because she offered to reimburse the nephew for all his out-of-pocket costs. Because we conclude the widow should be estopped from asserting the statute of frauds to avoid the sale, and because her offer cannot limit the buyer’s remedies, we reverse.

This appeal involves interpretation of a warranty contract for used cars. Since the contract provided no exclusion for an inaccurate odometer, we affirm the trial court's enforcement of the warranty.

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County appeals the summary dismissal of an action against Cigna Healthcare of Tennessee, Inc. The claims are a result of Cigna's failure to purchase a performance bond in assurance of Cigna's fulfillment of its obligation to Metro employees. Metro circulated a Request for Proposal to provide health insurance services for Metro employees for a four-year period which required the successful bidder to purchase a performance bond. Cigna was a successful bidder and fully performed all obligations, with the exception of the performance bond. As the term neared expiration, Metro discovered Cigna had not provided the bond and, moreover, that the parties had failed to execute a written agreement. After negotiations to execute a written agreement failed, Metro filed this action contending Cigna was unjustly enriched by failing to provide the performance bond and, alternatively, that Cigna was in breach of contract by failing to provide the bond. Cigna denied liability and moved for summary judgment. The trial court summarily dismissed the unjust enrichment claim finding Cigna had not charged Metro for the cost of a performance bond, thus it was not unjustly enriched. The trial court also dismissed the breach of contract claim finding Metro had failed to satisfy a condition precedent to recover on the claim. Metro appeals contending material facts are in dispute. We affirm the dismissal of both claims.

This is an appeal as of right from a denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant, Wade P. Tucker, was convicted of attempted first-degree murder pursuant to a guilty plea, and especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary following a bench trial. The Defendant was sentenced to twenty-four years in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). This Court upheld the Defendant's attempted murder and especially aggravated robbery convictions on direct appeal, but reversed the conviction for aggravated burglary. See State v. Wade P. Tucker, No. M2001-02298-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1574998 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 17, 2002). The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied. The Defendant now appeals denial of post-conviction relief, arguing: (1) his conviction for attempted first degree murder is void due to a faulty guilty plea; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Louise Dawson Marlow, pled nolo contendere to reckless homicide and agreed to a sentence of seven years as a Range II, multiple offender. The trial court sentenced the defendant to one year in confinement followed by six years in community corrections. This Court concluded on direct appeal that the defendant was not eligible for community corrections and remanded for re-sentencing. Upon remand, the trial court re-sentenced the defendant to serve her entire sentence in confinement. The defendant again appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in re-sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Darrell E. Braddock, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The unsuccessful plaintiff brings this appeal from the trial court's summary judgment dismissing his malpractice claim. Because the plaintiff did not respond to the defendant's properly supported Motion for Summary Judgment, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Joe Clark Mitchell, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss and expunge. The State has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Petitioner, Mark Steven Parker, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition was filed outside the applicable statute of limitation and is, therefore, time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The petitioner, James Lavell Carrethers, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder, a Class A felony. He contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, William Binkley, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of attempted first degree murder and reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective twenty-five-year sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief, and the petitioner appealed. The State argues that the appeal should be dismissed because the petitioner filed his post-conviction petition outside the one-year statute of limitations. We conclude that the case should be remanded in order for the post-conviction court to determine whether the petition was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations. Regarding the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we hold that the post-conviction court properly ruled that the petitioner did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel.

The petitioner, Calvin J. Grissette, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's order dismissing his November 2, 2004 petition for post-conviction relief that challenged his 2003 convictions of second degree murder and attempt to commit second degree murder. In his petition, the petitioner claimed infirmity in his convictions due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the record supports the post-conviction court's denial of relief, we affirm.

The defendant, Cecil Moss, filed two motions in Dickson County Circuit Court requesting pretrial jail credits and sentencing credits on his two convictions for sale of cocaine and the trial court denied both motions. The defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying him jail credit. We hold that this case is not properly before this court because no appeal as of right exists from the trial court's dismissal of the motions, and we dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal by the trial court of his action under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act challenging the calculation of his prison sentence. Holding that his petition to review in the Chancery Court of Davidson County was untimely under Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(b)(1), the trial court dismissed the action. We affirm the trial court.

The petitioner, William Chase, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the post-conviction court erred by concluding that it was without jurisdiction to consider the petition, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

The state appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court's suppression of statements made by the defendant at the defendant's second sentencing hearing. It claims that despite its failure during discovery to give the defendant notice of his statements, the trial court abused its discretion in suppressing the state's evidence, which it contends is the most drastic measure available and should only be employed when no other appropriate remedy exists. The state argues that granting the defendant a continuance would have been an appropriate remedy. We conclude the trial court erred in suppressing the statements and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Petitioner, Basil Marceaux, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion to suppress evidence against him. The State has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Petitioner, Patrick Stewart, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The petitioner, Robert Roysden, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

The Sheriff of Lawrence County filed an application in the circuit court pursuant to section 8-20-101 et seq. of the Tennessee Code seeking, among other things, funding for new vehicles, an additional administrative assistant for his investigators, two additional corrections officers for his jail, and increased salaries for his employees. The trial court granted the sheriff additional funding for these items. Regarding the salary increases, the trial court ordered that they be retroactive to the beginning of the prior fiscal year. The county appealed the trial court's decision regarding the aforementioned items to this Court. We reverse in part and affirm in part the decisions of the trial court.

This appeal involves an action brought by Lieutenant Stace Thompson of the City of LaVergne Police Department under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Lt. Thompson alleged he was demoted as a result of investigating the alleged sexual harassment of a police officer within the department by the administrative assistant to the Chief of Police. After a trial by jury, judgment was rendered in favor of Lt. Thompson in the amount of $300,000.00 for embarrassment and humiliation and $4,000.00 for loss of benefits. The City of LaVergne has appealed. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred in awarding $12,360 in temporary total disability benefits for the period between April 5, 2000, and September 19, 2000. We conclude that the evidence presented more appropriately supported a finding that the employee was entitled to temporary partial benefits in the amount awarded by the chancellor and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court as so modified.

There is no question the Board could sanction Ms. Robertson for her undisputed violation of the ethical rules of conduct. While the severity of the sanction may appear disproportionate to the violation itself in view of all the circumstances, courts will generally refrain from reviewing the relation of a sanction to the violation, as long as it is within the range of authorized sanctions.

Aggrieved of the Davidson County Criminal Court's revocation of his probation, the defendant, James Edward Long, appeals. He presents two issues on appeal: (1) whether the state adequately informed the defendant of the factual basis for the revocation and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. We affirm the order of the Criminal Court.