APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Shirley Mason, appeals as of right the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief by the Bedford County Circuit Court. She seeks relief from her conviction for delivering less than one-half gram of cocaine and resulting sentence of eight years in confinement. The petitioner contends that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused her to enter an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict of evading arrest by motor vehicle with risk of death or injury. The trial court determined that the Defendant, Daniel Livingston, was a career offender and sentenced him to twelve years for the felony evading arrest conviction and time served for a misdemeanor resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues five issues: (1) the evading arrest statute is unconstitutional because it violates the "Caption Clause" of the Tennessee Constitution; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for felony evading arrest with risk of death or injury; (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant as a career offender because the State's notice of enhanced punishment was defective; (4) the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; and (5) the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated because the trial court made findings of fact for sentencing purposes. We affirm the Defendant's conviction, but modify the sentence to four years to be served as a Range I standard offender.

This is a direct appeal from convictions on a jury verdict of attempted aggravated robbery, resisting arrest and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a term of nine years, and concurrent sentences of six months, and eleven months and twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant raises one issue, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of attempted aggravated robbery. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but reduce the effective sentence to eight years.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Stacy Johnson, of two counts of burglary of a building, two counts of theft of property over $1,000, and eight counts of burglary of a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the consolidation of the Defendant’s indictments deprived him of a fair trial; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) the State improperly used specific theft locations without proper foundation; and (4) the trial court improperly allowed security videotape recordings to be admitted into evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, David Gene Skipper, pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirty-one years in prison. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, contending that: (1) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (2) his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (3) there was not a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty pleas. Finding no error in the judgment of the post-conviction court, we affirm the dismissal of the Petitioner's petition.

The appellant, Randy L. Johnson, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of theft of property valued over $1,000. He received a total effective sentence of nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court granted the appellant probation. Subsequently, his probation was revoked because of new offenses and a positive drug screen. The trial court ordered the petitioner to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the revocation of his probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Gary Alden Bowers, pled guilty in the Carter County Criminal Court to three counts of aggravated burglary, one count of burglary, two counts of theft of property over $500, two counts of theft of property under $500, and one count of felony failure to appear. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Shawn Smith died of aspiration of gastric contents while a patient at the University of Tennessee Medical Center. Shawn Smith’s mother, Patsy Smith (“Plaintiff”), sued the State of Tennessee (“the State”). The case was transferred to the Claims Commission (“the Commission”). After trial, the Commission entered a judgment for the State holding, inter alia, that there was no breach of the standard of care. Plaintiff appeals claiming that the Commission erred in holding there was no breach of the standard of care, that the Commission erred in making certain factual findings, and that the Commission erred in refusing to find that the integrity of the medical record had been compromised. We affirm.
 

A Bledsoe County grand jury indicted the defendant, Nona Pilgram, for assault and vandalism resulting in $1,000 to $10,000 in damages to the vehicle of the victim, Molly Myers. A jury acquitted the defendant of assault but convicted her of vandalism resulting in $500 to $1,000 in damages. For this conviction, the court ordered the defendant to serve a six-year probationary sentence. The defendant now appeals her conviction and sentence, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial or resentencing on the following grounds: (1) The trial court erred by refusing to allow testimony regarding the victim's prejudice towards the defendant; (2) the trial court erred by allowing hearsay evidence regarding the fair market value of the victim's vehicle; (3) the trial court erred by refusing to allow the introduction of an internet-based estimate of the victim's vehicle; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-102 through 121 when determining whether the defendant was a viable candidate for judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

The Appellant, Sonya Gosnell, appeals the Greene County Criminal Court's denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Gosnell raises the single issue of whether she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Gary Lee Marise, was convicted by a Carroll County jury of possession of anhydrous ammonia with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance, a class E felony, and the misdemeanor offenses of possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. For his conviction for the possession of anhydrous ammonia, Marise received a two-year sentence, with service of ninety days confinement, followed by supervised probation. On appeal, Marise raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and (2) whether his sentence for possession of anhydrous ammonia is excessive. After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction and resulting felony sentence.

Claimant sought reimbursement for child care under the Child Care Certificate Program. The Commissioner granted the State summary judgment on the grounds that the State was not contractually bound to reimburse claimant under the governmental immunity statutory scheme. On appeal, we affirm.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Lawrence Montgomery, appeals the trial court's denial of his application for writ of 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. It appears from the record before us that the notice of appeal was not timely filed and this Court cannot conclude that justice requires that this Court waive the timely filing requirement. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the above-captioned appeal is dismissed.

The Appellant, Clifford L. Taylor, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for arrest of judgment. 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 petition is not proper as either a motion in arrest of judgment, petition for post-conviction relief, or application for writ of habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The Petitioner Marvin Anthony Matthews 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. Petitioner has failed to establish either that this sentence has expired or that his conviction or sentence is void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The petitioner, Kelvin Wade Cloyd, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, claims that the state knowingly used false testimony during his trial, and asserts that he was erroneously assessed costs. The judgment is affirmed.

Aunt and niece agreed that aunt would convey her residence to niece in exchange for the promise of niece to look after her in her declining years. The years passed, niece provided care and attention for a period of time, but eventually ceased doing so. Aunt sought to rescind the deed for failure of consideration. The trial judge held that while the proof established a contract, the action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. Reversed on a finding that the contract was a continuing obligation.

The plaintiff in this case was employed as the director of schools for Campbell County, Tennessee, under a contract of employment which was deemed by the defendant Campbell County Board of Education to have terminated after four years. The plaintiff sued the Board for breach of contract asserting that the contract contained a clause which provided that if the Board took no action by April 15 of each year of the contract to either extend or non-renew, the contract was automatically extended one year. The plaintiff contended that, in view of this clause and accompanying non-action by the Board, the contract did not terminate upon the expiration of four years, but rather extended beyond that period of time. The plaintiff alternatively asserted that, pursuant to a prior order of the trial court entered in a matter unrelated to the present case, he was entitled to an annual salary of not less than ten percent below that of the director of schools. The Board filed a motion for summary judgment requesting a ruling that the automatic extension clause of the contract was invalid and that the contract expired according to its terms. The Board's motion also requested that the trial court rule that, upon expiration of the contract, the plaintiff enjoys no rights to salary beyond those of a classroom teacher. The trial court denied the Board's motion with respect to the automatic extension clause, declaring the clause to be valid and enforceable; however, the Board's motion was granted with respect to the matter of the plaintiff's rights to salary granted by the court's prior order. We hold that the automatic extension clause is invalid, but that the plaintiff retains those rights granted him under the prior order of the trial court subject to further review by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.

Appellant seeks relief, ostensibly under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, from final orders establishing paternity and setting child support obligations. Because Appellant failed to timely file his petition to establish fraud and/or misrepresentation and because the equities in this matter do not support the disestablishment of paternity, we affirm.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Rico Raybon, appeals the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The petition was filed outside the applicable statute of limitation and is, therefore, time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the
dismissal of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Joseph L. Coleman, 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. Because Petitioner has failed to show either that his sentence has expired or that the trial court was without jurisdiction, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The Petitioner, Darren Ray Case, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. 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.

This is petition to modify custody. The mother and father of the minor child were never
married. In April 2002, when the child was seven years old, the trial court entered a consent order designating the mother as the primary residential parent of the child and giving the father residential time. During the summer of 2002, the parties became embroiled in a dispute over which school and in what grade the minor child should be enrolled for the upcoming school year. Against the father’s wishes, the mother took the child out of the third grade at a public school and enrolled her in the second grade at a private school. The father filed a petition for contempt, and the trial court ordered the mother to return the child to her class at the public school pending a final resolution of the father’s petition. The mother did not do so. The father then sought a change in custody. The trial court granted the father temporary custody pending a final resolution. The father retained temporary primary custody for the remainder of the school year. The trial court then held a hearing on the father’s request to be permanently designated primary residential parent. After a hearing, the trial court restored the mother as primary residential parent, determining that the circumstances did not warrant a change in designation as primary residential parent. The father now appeals. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the father did not show sufficient change in circumstances to remove mother as primary residential parent.
 

The Defendant, Danny Ray Applegate, pled guilty to three counts of the sale of methamphetamine and one count of possession of more than 100 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to sell. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eleven years in prison. The Defendant appeals, contending: (1) that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence upon him; and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to sentence him to a community corrections sentence. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s sentence.