APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a child support case. The appellant is the father of eight children who are the subject of this dispute. The State filed a petition in the Juvenile Court alleging that the children were dependent and neglected due to the drug use of the mother and father. The mother and father stipulated to these charges and the children were placed in the care of relatives. The State later filed a petition to establish paternity and set support, seeking adjudication of numerous issues, including child support. The trial court ruled on the issue of child support, but did not rule on the other issues. Without seeking permission for interlocutory appeal, the father appealed the ruling on child support. We dismiss the appeal, finding that the order from which the father appeals is not a final order and is thus not properly before this Court.

The petitioner, Carl Ed Leming, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Circuit Court to two counts of aggravated rape. He received consecutive sentences of forty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with release eligibility after serving thirty percent of his sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner filed in the Bledsoe County Circuit Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his sentence was illegal because he received statutorily impermissible release eligibility. The court dismissed the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Joseph B. Thompson, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he challenged his 2001 jury conviction of misdemeanor theft on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that the trial court committed certain errors. The state has moved this court to affirm the order of dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. We sustain the motion and affirm the order.

The employee in this workers' compensation case suffered a spontaneous and large right-lung pneumothorax while at work. The pneumothorax required two corrective surgeries and resulted in treatment with narcotics for chronic pain. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the injury sustained was an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. We further hold that the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the employee was totally and permanently disabled. We affirm the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Appellant, Edward Chumney, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Madison County Circuit Court. On appeal, Chumney argues that the trial court was without authority to revoke his probation because the violation warrants were issued after his sentence of probation had expired.  After review, we agree that three of his sentences had expired; however, his two sentences for aggravated burglary had not. Accordingly, we affirm revocation of his two sentences for aggravated burglary and reverse and vacate revocation of his sentences for misdemeanor theft, class E felony theft, and class D felony theft. The case is remanded for correction of the records below to reflect this holding and for other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Robert R. McCray, petitioned the Sullivan County Criminal Court for a writ of habeas corpus to gain release from that court's 18-month sentence imposed for a conviction of selling a counterfeit controlled substance. The court denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. The state has moved this court to affirm the order via memorandum opinion pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. We sustain the state's motion and affirm the order pursuant to Rule 20.

The defendant, Santita Makeva Sutton, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to two counts of sale of one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a Class E felony, and simple possession of a schedule VI controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced her to eight years for each Class B felony conviction, one year for the Class E felony conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Class A misdemeanor conviction. The court ordered two of the three Class B felony convictions, the Class E felony conviction, and the Class A misdemeanor conviction to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the other Class B felony conviction for an effective total sentence of sixteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in denying her alternative sentencing under state law and the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the trial court.

In the 1940's, Tyler Seal received a life estate interest in a parcel of land with the remainder going to his heirs at law upon his death. In 1968, Tyler Seal conveyed his interest in the property to his brother, Clint Seal, via a deed which purported to convey a fee simple interest. This deed was not recorded until 1991. Tyler Seal passed away in March of 1996. Clint Seal deeded the property in fee simple to his son and daughter-in-law, Tony and Patricia Seal, the following year. This lawsuit was filed by various persons claiming an interest in the land because they were remaindermen pursuant to the will which originally conveyed the life estate to Tyler Seal. Suit was brought against Clint Seal as well as Tony and Patricia Seal ("Defendants"). Defendants claimed they were the rightful record owners of the property or, alternatively, that they were entitled to ownership of the property based on adverse possession. The Trial Court concluded Defendants were entitled to ownership of the property because they had adversely possessed the property for the requisite number of years and further that Plaintiffs' seven year statute of limitations to file suit had expired. We reverse.

First Source Furniture Group and Travelers Insurance Company have appealed the decisions of the trial court in favor of Randy Lee Hayes. First, the trial court awarded Mr. Hayes 25% permanent partial disability to his left arm due to a new injury. Second, the trial court, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2), reconsidered Mr. Hayes’ prior award and increased it by 7% to the body as a whole. We affirm the decisions of the trial court while correcting an admitted error regarding Mr. Hayes’ workers’ compensation benefit rate for the arm injury.

The petitioner, Jackie F. Curry, petitioned the Johnson County Criminal Court for habeas corpus relief from his three 2000 Knox County convictions of aggravated rape. The court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. The state has moved this court to affirm the convictions pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. We sustain the court's motion and affirm the order of dismissal.

This is a breach of contract case in which the controlling issue involves the commencement and conclusion of the term of an employment contract and, more specifically, when Plaintiff's guaranteed term of employment ended. The trial court determined that Defendant had breached the contract by terminating Plaintiff prior to the end of his employment term and awarded damages, together with contract authorized attorney fees and expenses. We affirm the judgment of the Chancellor.

The appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence to be served on probation. In this appeal, the appellant argues the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a Title IV child support case. Father/Appellee was subject to a court order requiring him to make monthly child support payments. Mother allegedly requested to end Father’s child support obligation and Title IV-D services due to a private agreement between the parties whereby Father paid some child support directly to Mother. The State/Appellant, on behalf of Mother, filed a contempt petition against Father seeking payment of child support and arrears. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the support orders and forgave any arrears. The trial court also denied the State’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. The State appeals based upon T.C.A. § 36-5-101(a)(5) because no petition or motion to modify child support was filed and based upon T.C.A. § 71-3-124 because the State asserts it is entitled to reimbursement from the arrears for public benefits paid to Mother. We reverse and remand.

The Defendant, Ricky Lynn Earls, was convicted by a jury of four counts of forgery, Class E felonies, and one count of theft under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court subsequently merged two of the forgery counts into the remaining two counts. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to an effective sentence of twelve years. The Defendant’s sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Ricky Lynn Earls, No. M2001-00112-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1586286 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 18, 2002). The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.  After a hearing, the trial court denied relief. This appeal followed. The sole issue before us is whether the Defendant suffered from the ineffective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to file timely a motion for new trial. We find that the Defendant is entitled to relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand this cause with instructions that the trial court grant the Defendant a delayed appeal.

The majority concludes that application of enhancing factor (21), adjudication of a delinquent act by a juvenile which would constitute a felony if committed by an adult, is inapplicable in this case under the holding of Blakely. I respectfully disagree. The decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2536-37 (2004), applied Apprendi, which recognized the Almendarez-Torres holding permitting sentencing enhancement based upon a prior guilty plea, as opposed to the necessity of a jury conviction, because guilty pleas are “entered pursuant to proceedings with substantial procedural safeguards of their own.”   Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2361 (2000). Similarly, I find that juvenile adjudications in this state are entered pursuant to proceedings with substantial procedural safeguards and constitutional protections of their own. A panel of this court recently concluded that enhancement factor (21) is not implicated under Blakely. The panel reasoned:

The constitutional protections of due process and a finding that the delinquent charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by United States v. Almendarez-Torres, 512 U.S. 224, 243, 118 S. Ct 1219, 1230 (1998), are integral to an adjudication of delinquency in this state. State v. Strickland, 532 S.W.2d 912, 921 (Tenn. 1975); Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-129(b) (2003); Tenn. R. Juv. P. 28(d)(2).

The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s sentence is required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent.

On appeal, the defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the sentence imposed, in light of Blakely v. Washington; and (3) the denial of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented, such that a reasonable jury could reject the theory of diminished capacity and find the defendant guilty of the convicted offenses.  Further, it appears that the enhancement factors were applied errantly in light of Blakely. Therefore, we reduce the sentence to the presumptive minimum and remand the matter for a determination of the defendant’s suitability for alternative sentencing.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Larry Holmes, of four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the two aggravated robbery convictions into the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions and sentenced the defendant as a repeat violent offender to concurrent sentences of fifty-five years at one hundred percent for the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions and as a career offender to fifteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction to be served consecutively to the especially aggravated kidnapping sentences for an effective sentence of seventy years. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery, (2) the trial court erred by denying his request for a mistrial based upon a misstatement by an officer testifying for the state, and (3) the trial court erred in imposing his sentences. ¹ We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he should have been appointed post-conviction counsel to assist him with his petition. We conclude that the petitioner alleges a colorable claim for relief under the less stringent standards afforded to a pro se petitioner and that the petitioner’s request for counsel should have been granted.  Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the petition and remand the case to the post-conviction court for the appointment of counsel.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant did not open the door to cross-examination concerning other felonies involving dishonesty. This defendant’s record is extensive, and all but one of his thirteen convictions involve acts of dishonesty. The defendant’s credibility was an issue when he chose to testify. For me, it is a close question of whether the questions asked by the defendant’s attorney opened the door for further examination. By this I mean it appears that defense counsel was clearly trying to convey the defendant’s record consisted only of misdemeanor offenses. I trust the trial court heard the inflections in defense counsel’s voice that he used to emphasize “misdemeanor” in his questioning. Although his questions contained true statements, the inflections used in asking the questions by defense counsel could surely place an undue emphasis on “misdemeanor,” creating a misimpression on a jury. I believe the cavalier answers given by the defendant further opened the door when he answered, “I guess, yeah,” and “O.K.” The defendant had an extensive criminal record. His first arrest was at age nineteen, and he is now thirty-two. The record reveals that the defendant had never accumulated more than three years of good conduct without being arrested. His answers to the specific questions by defense counsel were answered in such a way that a jury could mistakenly believe that his brushes with the law were so infrequent or minor that he had difficulty remembering them. I believe this line of questions was designed to convey a false impression to the jury. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609 envisions impeachment by the State of a criminal defendant if he or she chooses to testify. Here, defense counsel sought to lessen the sting of the state’s impeachment or to steal the state’s thunder, a permissible tactic. However, this permissible trial tactic must be employed with the utmost caution or the door will be opened for the State to cross-examine on his entire record. Under the facts of this case, I conclude the trial court was correct in ruling that the defendant opened the door to further impeachment.

The petitioner, Christopher Duwan Robertson, appeals the dismissal by the Davidson County Criminal Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. After review of the record, we affirm.

This case is about a construction lien. A real estate developer hired a contractor to perform paving work on new roads in a subdivision. After the work was completed, the contractor sent the developer an invoice for the work done, but the developer did not pay. Eventually, the developer paid a portion of the invoice. When no further payments were made, the contractor filed a lien on the developer's roadway. The contractor then sued the developer to enforce the lien. After the suit was filed, the developer asserted that the contractor's workmanship was poor and that, as a result, the pavement on the roadway was defective. The trial court found that the contractor had a valid lien and awarded a judgment against the developer and the developer's surety. The trial court also awarded the contractor prejudgment interest. The developer appeals, asserting that the road was public and not subject to lien, that the trial court made erroneous evidentiary rulings, that the trial court erred in finding that a variance from the listed measurements was permissible under the contract, that it should have been awarded a setoff against the contractor's judgment, and that the contractor should not have been awarded prejudgment interest. We affirm, finding that the contractor's lien was valid and enforceable, that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, that the developer failed to prove damages to setoff, and that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in the award of prejudgment interest.

The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s causes of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

The petitioner, Jeffery Lee Miller, was convicted by a jury in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of premeditated first degree murder. The petitioner received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction without the possibility of parole. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. The petitioner now appeals.  Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant appeals his burglary conviction and argues that the trial court erred in finding that he “opened the door” to cross-examination regarding his prior burglary convictions. Upon thorough review, we conclude that defense counsel’s pattern of questioning did not open the door to cross-examination on prior burglary convictions initially ruled inadmissible. We hold that the trial court erred in reversing itself and allowing cross-examination as to the convictions; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.