APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant, Kevin Joseph Karr, has appealed from the trial court's order summarily dismissing, without an evidentiary hearing, his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion for the trial court's judgment to be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. After the State's motion was filed, Appellant filed a motion for an attorney to be appointed to represent him. In light of our ruling on the State's motion, the defendant's motion is denied by separate order.

This is a child custody dispute involving the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The parties agreed to the appointment of a guardian ad litem. After an investigation, the guardian ad litem recommended that primary custody be awarded to the father. The mother filed a motion to remove the guardian ad litem. The trial court did not do so. After a bench trial, the father was designated the primary residential parent. The mother asserts that the guardian ad litem appointed by the trial court appeared biased towards the father because the guardian ad litem knew the father’s sister. The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to remove the guardian ad litem.

This appeal arises from an order granting summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for one of the defendants and the plaintiff appealed to this Court. After reviewing the record, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Trial Court granted defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's claim for malpractice. Defendant had represented plaintiff in her representative capacity as conservator, and subsequently as administrator of deceased's estate. The Trial Court held the statute of limitations applied because she knew she had been harmed by defendant's actions more than one year prior to the filing of this action. On appeal, we affirm.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Mark S. Armstrong, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty years, as a Range I offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to grant the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial when inadmissible evidence was admitted through an inadequate redaction of a videotaped statement; (2) the trial court erred in failing to provide an adequate limiting instruction to the jury regarding a videotape sound malfunction; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the State to make an election of the offense for which it sought a conviction; (4) the trial court erred in failing to grant the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case is about the sale of a business. The owner of a copy machine business sold the assets of the
business to a competitor. The buyer purchased the company through a promissory note that required monthly payments. After the sale, the seller and the seller’s son became employees of the buyer.  However, while employed by the buyer, the seller continued to deal in copy machines on the side.  The seller voluntarily left employment, and his son was fired. After the buyer learned of the seller’s side dealings in copiers, the buyer stopped making payments on the promissory note. The seller sued the buyer for failing to make the agreed upon payments. The buyer counter-sued for breach of contract. After a trial, the trial court rescinded the purchase agreement. We reverse, finding that rescission was not an appropriate remedy in this case, and remand for a determination of the appropriate damages.

This is a legal malpractice action in which Plaintiff, incarcerated at Turney Center Industrial Prison, appeals the dismissal by the trial court of his action against his court-appointed assistant public defender. Holding the defendant immune from suit under Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-14-209, the trial court dismissed the Complaint. We affirm the action of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus.  In that petition the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from his sentence for facilitating aggravated robbery. We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiff for damages from destruction of road over easement and reformed deed. On appeal, we affirm.

The petitioner, Christopher Cook, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

Husband appeals the division of marital property. The trial court found Husband did not bring into the marriage as many assets as Wife did, thus awarding a greater portion of the parties' home to Wife rather than Husband. The trial court further found that Husband had dissipated marital assets when he sold the parties' horse riding rings in violation of the statutory injunction. Husband claims that the division of property was not equal and challenges the finding that he dissipated marital assets while not making the same finding with regard to Wife. We affirm.

In an opinion filed June 24, 2005, this court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief, concluding that the single issue presented in the petition, whether the waiver of the right to counsel was voluntary, had been previously determined by this court on direct appeal. On July 11, 2005, the petitioner, Anthony Forster, filed a petition to rehear pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39. He complains that this court misapprehended a material fact and that this court ruled on an issue upon which the parties had not been heard. He asserts that this court erred by concluding that the issue had been previously determined because the propriety of this court's opinion on direct appeal had not been addressed.  Further, he contends that the parties were not heard on the issue because the state in its brief asserted that the issue had been waived and did not address the merits of the claim.

The Petitioner, Jorge Acosta Rubio, 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's denial of relief 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 grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The petitioner, Christopher Robert Smith, seeks post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After being convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell over 300 grams of cocaine, the petitioner appealed. On direct appeal this Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence. State v. Christopher Robert Smith, No. M2001-02297-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31202132 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 27, 2002), perm. app. denied (Feb. 24, 2003). The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. For the following reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief.

This is a direct appeal as of right by the State from a denial of its petitions to have Defendants Daniel Cleveland and Matthew Harville declared habitual offenders pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-601 et seq. On appeal, the State argues that the language of section 603(2)(A) of the MVHO statute contains an error, and therefore legislative intent and the “entire scheme” of the statute require this Court to interpret the provision in question by changing its conjunctive construction to disjunctive. We disagree, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, William P. Livingston, Jr., appeals the dismissal by the Hamblen County Criminal Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. After review of the record, we affirm.

The state appeals the McNairy County Circuit Court’s order suppressing drug-related evidence seized from the home of the defendant, Billy Dewayne Walker, pursuant to a search warrant. The state contends that the trial court erred in finding that the information contained in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search. We agree and reverse the trial court’s ruling.

The defendant, Christopher Kirkendall, was convicted of facilitation of attempted second degree murder and two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, holding that enhancement factors (3), (10), and (21) were applied in violation of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The state filed an application for permission to appeal to our supreme court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The supreme court granted the state's application and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration as a result of its opinion in State v. Edwin Gomez and Jonathan S. Londono, ___S.W.3d ___, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2005). Based upon the Gomez decision, the judgments of the trial court must be affirmed.

The Defendant, Clyde T. Smith, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition seeking 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 State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Purchasers of real property filed suit for breach of contract, negligence per se, intentional misrepresentation, breach of warranty of title, and emotional distress against various parties, alleging that purchasers had purchased the subject property in reliance upon misrepresentations by defendants as to the merchantability of title to the property, only to discover later that the property had been illegally subdivided by defendants. Purchasers contended that they suffered catastrophic pecuniary and other loss as result of alleged misrepresentations, due to extremely limited legal uses that could be made of illegally subdivided parcel. At trial, jury found that each of the defendants had committed intentional misrepresentation, and awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $170,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Defendants appeal on numerous grounds. Finding that the trial court erred, we vacate and remand.

The petitioner, Walter Earl Preston, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that his sentences are illegal, thereby rendering his judgments of conviction void. We affirm the trial court.

The Petitioner, Author Ray Turner, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief contending that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) established a new rule of law that was retrospectively applicable to his case and entitled him to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. 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. 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 Appellant, Brian Carl Lev, appeals the denial of judicial diversion following his guilty pleas to two counts of statutory rape. After review, we reverse the sentencing decision of the trial court and remand for deferment of the proceedings as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (2003).

The petitioner challenges the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he contended that his absence from voir dire violated his constitutional rights and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) because he did not personally waive the right to be present. We initially note that, at the time of the petitioner's trial, a personal waiver of the right was not required. We conclude that there is no jurisdictional defect apparent from the record. Therefore, we affirm the denial of habeas relief.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Eddie Hatchett, of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient because the state failed to negate his claim of self-defense. We affirm the trial court.