APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves a question of whether an insurance policy covers the injuries sustained by the plaintiff under the facts of this case. The original suit filed by plaintiff against Justin Harkins, Andrew Keon, and James Keon was settled out of court, leaving Great River Insurance Company, an unnamed defendant. After granting the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory and partial summary judgment on whether the plaintiff was a covered insured under the policy, the parties agreed to send the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator returned an award in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court confirmed the award but reduced the amount, accounting for the insurance policy’s limit. The trial court also awarded the plaintiff pre-judgment interest but stated that the total award to the plaintiff could not exceed the limit in the insurance policy. Great River Insurance Company appealed to this Court, and the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.

In Tennessee, a determination of child support is statutory. Jones v. Jones, 870 S.W.2d 281 (Tenn. 1994).¹ Accordingly, I would approach resolution of this appeal by resort to the applicable statutes.

The petitioner, Howard Duty, Jr., appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Alfonzo Silvestre Arze (“Father”) and MaryAnne Bracken Arze (“Mother”) were divorced in 2000.  The divorce was based upon stipulated grounds of irreconcilable differences, and the parties submitted a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) to the Trial Court for approval. The terms of the MDA were agreed upon through mediation. At the time of the divorce, Father was employed as a physician with gross earnings of approximately $150,000. Mother was unemployed. Due to the significant disparity in income, Father agreed to pay Mother $2,000 in child support even though he was not obligated legally to do so since he was the primary residential parent for the parties’ four children. When the oldest child turned eighteen, Father reduced his child support payments by twenty-five percent, $500. After Mother challenged Father’s unilateral reduction in child support,  the Trial Court entered an order which required Father to pay child support in an amount consistent with the Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”). We conclude that because Father was not legally obligated under the Guidelines to pay any child support, the payment of $2,000 was purely a contractual obligation which was not governed by the Guidelines. We also conclude that Father was within his contractual rights when he reduced the child support payments by $500 when the oldest child became emancipated.

The petitioner, Kenya Davis, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Tyrone Chalmers, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction 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. Because the petition for post-conviction relief is time-barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The Petitioner, Joseph L. Tims, appeals the trial 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 State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Otis Miller, III, pled guilty to four (4) counts of aggravated sexual battery. As a result of the guilty plea, the trial court sentenced the appellant to ten (10) years on each conviction and ordered the first two counts to be served concurrently and the last two counts to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered that the first two counts be served consecutively to the remaining two counts, for an effective sentence of twenty (20) years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's application of certain enhancement factors in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and the trial court's decision to order consecutive sentences. Because our supreme court recently determined that Blakely has no application in Tennessee, we have reviewed the appellant's sentence de novo. Despite the trial court's improper application of several enhancement factors, we affirm the appellant's sentence because we determine that the existence of enhancement factor (16) justifies enhancement of the sentence from eight (8) to ten (10) years. We also affirm the trial court's decision to order consecutive sentences.

The Appellant, James C. Breer, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Breer argues that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to investigate and prepare for trial, and (2) failing to advise him of his right to testify at trial in violation of Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999). After review, we conclude that issue (1) is without merit. However, with regard to issue (2), we conclude that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that Breer personally waived his right to testify as required by Momon.  Moreover, because the procedural guidelines adopted in Momon for determining whether the error was harmless were not followed, we find it necessary to remand for resolution of this issue.

A Dyer County jury convicted the defendant, Syrus Maurice Coleman, of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple offender to fourteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Upon our review of the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of two counts of sale of a Schedule III controlled substance (Lortab), a Class D felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to concurrent four-year sentences. He appeals to this Court contending that: (1) the evidence presented was insufficient to show that the defendant acted knowingly; (2) the evidence presented was insufficient to show that the transaction constituted a sale; (3) the trial court erred in finding that the dispensing of prescription drugs creates a high risk of harm to human life; and (4) the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences.

Appellant was an independent candidate for election to the United States Senate in the November 5, 2002, election in which he was defeated by the present incumbent Lamar Alexander. He seeks to have the election declared void on the basis that Alexander used his own money and accepted campaign contribution in support of his candidacy. He alleges that such self financing arrangements and campaign contributions financing violate the qualifications clauses and the equal protection and due process clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions. Named as defendants were Lamar Alexander, Attorney General Paul Summers and the Lamar Alexander for Senate Committee. All defendants filed Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motions to dismiss, which motions were granted by the trial judge. We affirm the actions of the trial court.

Dorian Jones ("the defendant") was cited to the Municipal Court of Johnson City for a violation of the Animal Control Ordinance ("the Ordinance") of the City of Johnson City ("the City"). The City contends that the defendant failed to have his dog "under control." Following a finding of guilt and the imposition of a $50 fine and costs, the defendant appealed to the trial court. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered its judgment, in which it held that the defendant violated the Ordinance. The trial court dismissed the defendant's appeal and decreed that "the fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) . . . be reinstated and is hereby upheld and affirmed." The defendant appeals to us, contending that he was entitled to a jury trial. He also argues, in legal effect, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's judgment. We affirm.

The defendant, Jerry L. Sandridge, was convicted by a jury of two counts 1 of aggravated robbery.  On direct appeal, this Court modified one of the convictions to aggravated assault and remanded for re-sentencing. State v. Franklin, 130 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a career offender to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant presents the single issue of whether the trial court properly classified him as a career offender. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted this appeal to determine 1) whether a trial court's order declining to hold an alleged contemnor in civil contempt may be appealed; 2) whether compensatory damages for civil contempt are available pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-105 (1980 & 2000) from a contemnor who commits an act forbidden by a trial court's order; and, if so, 3) whether those damages may be recovered if the violation is not ongoing at the time of the hearing. We answer these questions in the affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly investigate and prepare his case for trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief.

The petitioner appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Appellant, Raymond Bailey, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of especially aggravated kidnapping and carjacking. Following a sentencing hearing, Bailey was sentenced to consecutive sentences of twenty-eight years for especially aggravated kidnapping and twelve years for carjacking.  On appeal, Bailey raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of undisclosed evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of his drug possession at the time of his arrest; (4) whether Bailey’s sentences violate Blakely v. Washington; and (5) whether the cumulative errors require a new trial. After review of the record, we conclude that issues (1), (2), (4), and (5) are without merit. With regard to issue (3), we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence but conclude that the error was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Johnny Maxwell, of five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of twenty-four years for each especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, to be served at one hundred percent, and to eleven years for the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the other sentences for an effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) his especially aggravated kidnapping convictions cannot stand under State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991), because the victims’ detention was incidental to the aggravated robbery; (2) the trial court improperly commented on the evidence during the jury instructions; and (3) his sentences are improper in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant appeals his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated robbery.  Specifically, he avers that, (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; (2) the State’s failure to disclose the statement of an unindicted co-conspirator constitutes a Brady violation and entitles him to a new trial; (3) the sentence was issued in error, in light of Blakely v. Washington; and (4) the cumulative effect of all errors merits a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed.

Plaintiff sued for damages incurred to correct condition of roadway caused by defendants' motor vehicle which destroyed a section of guardrail. Defendants appeal from Judgment awarding damages to plaintiff on grounds damages were not proved. On appeal, we affirm.

In this divorce case, Mother was declared to be the primary residential parent and Father's overnight co-parenting time was required to be exercised at his parents' home with them present. This restriction was prompted by presentation of evidence that Father haded computer internet sites exhibiting material of a sexual nature and had placed a personal advertisement on an internet site in an apparent effort to attract sexual partners. Father appeals. Absent proof that Father's actions presented any risk of harm to his children, we modify the judgment of the trial court and the parenting plan to delete the requirement that Father's overnight visitation be supervised by his parents at their home. We further modify the parenting plan to the extent that it does not require mutual decision-making.

Plaintiff, a switchman/brakeman for Illinois Central Railroad Company, filed a claim for damages arising from injuries allegedly caused by the railroad’s failure to maintain a track switch. The jury allocated 100% fault to the railroad and awarded Plaintiff $500,000 in damages. The trial court denied the railroad’s motion for a directed verdict, remittitur, or new trial. We affirm.

William and Shirley Tassell's ("Plaintiffs") purchase of a house in 1998 was financed through U.S. Bank, Inc. (the "Bank"). After Plaintiffs fell behind in their payments, the Bank filed a detainer warrant and began the foreclosure process. Plaintiffs claim they made a payment bringing their mortgage current and they made this payment one day before their house was to be sold at foreclosure. Plaintiffs claim the Bank, nevertheless, proceeded with the foreclosure sale thereby forcing them to file this lawsuit seeking to have the foreclosure set aside. The Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and refused to interfere with the foreclosure proceedings, noting that no valid appeal had been taken in the detainer action. Plaintiffs appeal. We dismiss this appeal because there is no final appealable judgment as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a).

The appellant, Joseph D. Taylor, was convicted of attempted rape, attempted sexual battery, and aggravated kidnapping. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced as a career offender to fifteen (15) years for attempted rape, eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for attempted sexual battery, and twelve (12) years as a violent offender for aggravated kidnapping. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction for attempted rape and reversed the other two convictions. See State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court after a hearing. On appeal, this Court set aside the appellant's sentence for attempted rape because he was improperly sentenced as a career offender. See Joseph D. Taylor v. State, No. M2003-00138-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 WL 350641, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 20, 2004). On remand, the trial court sentenced the appellant to fifteen (15) years as a Range III offender. A timely notice of appeal was filed. The appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because the trial court improperly applied enhancement factors that were not admitted by the appellant or determined by a jury. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.