APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiffs appeal an adverse judgment from the general sessions court to the circuit  court for a trial de novo pursuant to T.C.A. § 27-5-108 (Supp. 2004). On motion of defendant, the circuit court transferred the case to the chancery court because a previous suit filed in the chancery court on the same cause of action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff. The chancery court granted defendant’s motion to adopt the findings of the special master filed in the previous chancery court suit and then granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed. We vacate and remand to the circuit court.
 

The issues in this case are whether the trial court's award of alimony to the wife was excessive because the husband's income may be diminished when he retires from his current employment and whether the trial court's award to wife for her attorney's fees and expenses was erroneous. Upon a finding that the time of the husband's retirement is uncertain and a further finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the wife attorney's fees and expenses, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as rendered and remand.

This case involves claims of fraud arising out of the sale of a house. The plaintiff purchasers signed a contract to buy a house owned by the defendants. The contract to sell contained an "as is" clause, allowing inspection of the property but requiring the sale to be "as is." The purchasers did not inspect the house further before the closing. After the purchasers took possession, they noticed several defects in the house that were not disclosed by the sellers. The purchasers sued the sellers, alleging that the sellers had made material misrepresentations of fact and had fraudulently concealed or failed to disclose material defects in the house. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the sellers. It concluded that, although the sellers had made material misrepresentations of fact, the purchasers' reliance on those representations was not reasonable because of the "as is" provision in the contract and because the defects were either apparent or readily discoverable. The purchasers now appeal. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's conclusion that the purchasers' reliance was not reasonable.

The issue in this case is whether an award of permanent total disability should commence when the employee reaches maximum medical improvement or on the last day that the employee is able to work due to the injury. The trial judge ordered permanent total benefits to be paid as of the day the employee last worked. The employee appealed, arguing that he was totally disabled from the time that he reached maximum medical improvement, and because he was only able to work in a limited capacity thereafter, he should be able to collect benefits for the period between his reaching maximum medical improvement and the time he ultimately stopped work. Because the employee was working during the three years at issue and because there was no evidence presented that he was unemployable in the general workforce, the evidence supports the trial court’s decision that he did  not meet the statutory definition of permanent total disability until he stopped work.

This case comes before us on petitions for habeas corpus relief. Although several arguments are
raised on appeal, the dispositive issue presented is whether the petitioner is “imprisoned or restrained of liberty” by the challenged judgments and thus eligible to seek habeas corpus relief, when the petitioner’s sentences expired prior to filing for relief. We hold that he is not. The petitioner was convicted of numerous criminal offenses from 1986 to 1993. In 2002, the petitioner filed three pro se habeas corpus petitions challenging the validity of these convictions. The trial court dismissed the petitions. Upon appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the dismissal of the petitions was affirmed. In addition to affirming the trial court’s initial findings, the intermediate court also held that the petitioner was ineligible for habeas corpus relief because he was currently incarcerated on unrelated charges and thus had no standing to claim he was being illegally restrained by the challenged convictions. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Applying the rule recently announced in Hickman v. State, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. 2004), we hold that the petitioner is not currently "imprisoned or restrained of liberty" by the challenged convictions because they expired prior to his filing for relief; therefore, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

The Petitioner, Alonzo C. Williams, 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 allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The petitioner, Orlando Crenshaw, convicted of attempted first degree murder, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for relief. He asserts that (1) the trial court erred by failing to provide jury instructions on the appropriate lesser included offenses and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the requirements of Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999), and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare him to testify at trial; (3) that the state failed to prove that the offense occurred before the return of the indictment; (4) that the state engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by using false statements to secure the indictment and soliciting false testimony at trial; (5) that the trial court erred by providing a misleading jury instruction on the issue of criminal responsibility and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present the issue as a ground for relief on direct appeal; (6) that the trial court erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction with regard to certain of the evidence; (7) that he was denied the right to a fair trial because the same jury pool used in the trial of his co-defendant was used for his trial and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury pool; (8) that he was denied the right to a fair trial because of a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (9) that the state denied his right to a fair trial by utilizing mutually exclusive theories in his trial and that of his co-defendant. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed, the conviction is set aside, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

This appeal arises from a dispute between the City of Lebanon Planning Commission and real estate developers regarding approval of a proposed subdivision. The planning commission approved the plans for the first phase of this subdivision but then disapproved the plans for the second and third phases. The developers filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking judicial review of the commission's actions. The trial court granted the writ and determined that the planning commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by denying approval of the final subdivision plans. We affirm the trial court's decision.

Defendant, Amy Jo Taylor Blankenship, appealed the trial court's judgment revoking her probation and ordering her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Appellants appeal (1) a jury determination that a rock quarry, an asphalt plant, and trucking activities did not create a nuisance and (2) the allowance of discretionary costs. We affirm.

The Defendant, Howard Lavelle Tate, was pulled over by a Metropolitan Police Officer in Nashville, Tennessee for violating the noise ordinance. The officer asked the Defendant for consent to search the Defendant's person and the Defendant's vehicle. The Defendant replied "whatever" to both these requests. The officer found scales with a white powder residue in the Defendant's vehicle. The Defendant then fled the officer. The officer and a second officer caught the Defendant who then told the officers that they could find the drugs in his pants leg. The officers retrieved the drugs and placed the Defendant under arrest. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the warrantless searches. The trial court denied this motion. The Defendant pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, but reserved a certified question concerning whether the warrantless searches fell within an exception to the warrant requirement. The Defendant now appeals on the basis of the certified question. We find that the searches fell within an exception to the warrant requirement and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, James David Alder, was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a weapon. As a result, he received an effective sentence of twenty (20) years as a multiple offender. The judgments were affirmed on appeal. See State v. James David Alder, No. M2000-01804-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1285945 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 25, 2001). In this post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner alleges that for various reasons his trial counsel was ineffective. For the following reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

This case arises out of a petition filed by Appellants to compel the executor of Decedent’s estate to collect certain assets and a petition for declaratory judgment filed by Appellee. The trial court determined that Appellants’ motion in limine to exclude certain evidence based on the parol evidence rule should be denied. Additionally, the trial court denied Appellants’ objection to certain testimony based on the statute of frauds. The trial court further denied Appellants’ objections to exclude testimony based on the Dead Man’s Statute. The trial court determined that Decedent successfully gifted annual $10,000 sums to Appellee in the form of forgiving interest and principal owed by Appellee to Decedent as stated in a promissory note, finding there was clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that such transfers were advancements. Further, the court determined that such promissory note called for simple, rather than compound, interest, finding that Appellee owed Decedent’s estate the sum of $64,297.78. Appellants seek review by this Court and, for the following reasons, we affirm.
 

The defendant, Rose Marie Hernandez, pled guilty to seventy counts of forgery, a Class E felony, which the trial court merged into thirty-five convictions of forgery, and the trial court sentenced her as a Range III, persistent offender to five years and six months for each conviction. The trial court ordered some of the sentences to run concurrently and others to run consecutively for an effective sentence of thirty-three years and six months in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in applying certain enhancement factors in violation of the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and in denying alternative sentencing. Although we conclude that the sentencing procedure violated the rule announced in Blakely, we hold it to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Jimmy Albert Warren, indicted for second offense driving under the influence and DUI per se, filed a pre-trial motion to suppress all evidence. The trial court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the field sobriety tests and the statements made by the defendant prior to his arrest were admissible, but that the blood alcohol content test results were not.  In this interlocutory appeal initiated by the state, each party claims that the trial court erred. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Robert W. O'Neal ("Father") and Sandra K. O'Neal ("Mother") were granted a divorce by the Sumner County Circuit Court in 1986. There were two minor children born of the marriage, and Father was ordered to pay $650 per month in child support. After Mother passed away in June of 1990, the children's maternal grandparents, William and Marjorie Kirkpatrick, were awarded full custody of both children by the Sumner County Chancery Court. In 2001, Marjorie Kirkpatrick ("Petitioner") filed a petition in the Hamilton County Circuit Court seeking to have the previous order requiring Father to pay $650 per month in child support enforced. Petitioner also sought a substantial amount of arrearages. The Hamilton County Circuit Court determined that Father was in arrears a total of $55,063 covering from when Petitioner was awarded custody until June of 2002. Petitioner also was awarded her attorney fees. Father appeals, claiming the original order from the Sumner County Circuit Court requiring him to pay $650 per month in child support had no effect once Mother died. We modify the judgment of the Hamilton County Circuit Court, and affirm as modified.

The Defendant, Christopher A. Johnson, seeks to appeal as of right from the trial court's denial of his "Petition to Enforce the Plea Agreement." The State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because an appeal as of right does not lie from a trial court's denial of a petition to enforce a plea agreement. We agree with the State's argument and dismiss this appeal.

This appeal involves a boundary line dispute between neighbors. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs' boundary line description, and defendants appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

On this consolidated appeal, the defendant challenges the manner and consecutive nature of his sentences. After analyzing the issues properly before us, we conclude that the trial court did not err in revoking the defendant's probation on the former sentence or in denying him probation on the latter. Further, we hold the consecutive sentences to be warranted and proper in this instance. Therefore, we affirm.

Plaintiff filed suit asserting that she was the owner by adverse possession of four acres of farmland in Maury County. Defendants, who purchased adjoining property in 2001, assert that they are by deed the true and rightful owners of the disputed parcel. The trial court ruled that Plaintiff was the owner of the property by adverse possession based on a finding that she and her predecessors in interest had possessed the property visibly, exclusively, actually, continuously, openly, and notoriously for twenty years. We affirm.

This is an appeal from denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant, Martin Palmer Jones, was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder upon entry of best-interest guilty pleas. He was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment, which were to be served consecutively. The Defendant's sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Martin Palmer Jones, No. 03C01-9803-CR-00084, 1999 WL 93144 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 25, 1999). On petition for post-conviction relief, the Defendant claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty pleas. The trial court denied the petition, and the Defendant appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, William Cartwright, pled guilty to one count of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class D felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant received a sentence of three years as a Range I standard offender with the manner of service of his sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and misdemeanor theft. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Jeffery D. Rhoades, appeals from the Dyer County Circuit Court’s 2004 revocation of his 1996 sentences for burglary and theft. We affirm the revocation of probation and the ordering of confinement for the balance of the original effective sentence, but we modify the provisions for sentence credits and remand.

The defendant, Darius Jones, was convicted of one count of felony murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court ordered consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole for the felony murder, ten years for each of the aggravated robberies and attempted especially aggravated robberies, and four years for each of the attempted aggravated robberies and the aggravated burglary, for an effective sentence of life plus eighty-one years ¹. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient, that the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the crime scene, that the trial court erred by limiting the defense cross-examination of a homicide detective, that the trial court erred by admitting the videotaped preliminary hearing testimony of one of the victims, that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, that the sentence was excessive, and that cumulative error requires reversal.  The conviction for felony murder and sentence of life with the possibility of parole are affirmed. The remaining judgments of conviction are affirmed, but the causes are remanded for resentencing.