APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal contesting the award of discretionary costs by the Trial Court. We affirm.

This appeal involves the parental relationship between a three-year-old child and her biological father. Shortly after the child's birth in Ohio, her mother placed her for adoption with relatives residing in Tennessee. These relatives filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County seeking to terminate the biological father's parental rights and to adopt the child. The biological father thereafter filed a petition to establish parentage. Following a bench trial, the trial court established the child's parentage and determined that the biological father had not abandoned the child. Accordingly, the trial court denied the adoptive parents' petition to terminate the biological father's parental rights and to adopt the child. Because it had reserved ruling on the custody and visitation arrangements, the trial court granted the adoptive parent's application for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur that an interlocutory appeal is warranted in this case. We also concur with the trial court's conclusion that the adoptive parents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the biological father abandoned his daughter.

Based on his participation in a home invasion and robbery that resulted in the death of a victim, the defendant, Spencer Peterson, was charged by the Shelby County Grand Jury in thirteen separate indictments with one count of first degree premeditated murder; two counts of first degree felony murder; two counts of attempted first degree murder; eight counts of aggravated robbery; one count of aggravated burglary; three counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery; and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. The indictments were consolidated for trial, at the conclusion of which the defendant was convicted of all counts as charged with the exception of the first degree murder and attempted first degree murder counts, in which he was convicted, respectively, of the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, a Class A felony; and attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. After merging the three second degree murder convictions and the separate convictions of aggravated robbery involving the same victim, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to consecutive terms of twenty years for the second degree murder conviction and eight years for each of the four aggravated robbery convictions. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences for the remaining convictions, for an effective sentence of fifty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his second degree murder conviction; the denial of his motion to suppress his statement to police; the admission at trial of photographs of the victim; the propriety of the jurors having been allowed to directly question trial witnesses; and the consecutive sentencing imposed. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments as to certain of the offenses and for the trial court to set out its basis for consecutive sentencing.

The appellant, Demetrie Owens, was found guilty by a jury on two counts of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000 and one count of possession of contraband in a penal institution. The jury found the appellant not guilty of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the two theft convictions and sentenced the appellant to three years and four months on the theft and four years and eight months on the drug offense. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions on the charge of possession of contraband in a penal institution, and his sentence. Because the appellant failed to include his challenge to the jury instructions in a motion for new trial, that issue is waived. As to the remaining issues, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court properly sentenced the appellant.

The petitioner, Frank W. Johnson, pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to thirteen and one-half years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he pled guilty to an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Raymond Roger Jones, appeals the Washington County Criminal Court's dismissal of his pro se combined motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, petition for writ of error coram nobis, and petition for DNA analysis. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court of two counts of first degree murder. He received consecutive life sentences. This Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See State v. Jones, 735 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Washington County Criminal Court. The trial court dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed. See Raymond Roger Jones v. State, No. 03C01-9102-CR-00068, 1991 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 584, (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 26, 1991), perm. to app. denied (Tenn. 1992). On June 22, 2001, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, alleging that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), established a new rule of constitutional law requiring retroactive application to his case. Petitioner subsequently filed a supplemental request for DNA analysis. The trial court dismissed the motion and denied Petitioner's request for DNA Analysis. Petitioner appeals. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Aggrieved of the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner appeals. Based upon Roger L. Hickman v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. E2002-01916-SC-R11-PC (Tenn., Knoxville, Sept. 2, 2004), we affirm.

This is a divorce case. The husband appeals from the trial court’s divorce decree distributing the marital and separate property and awarding the wife alimony in futuro. We affirm.
 

The defendant appeals from convictions of aggravated assault and evading arrest. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, and that the sentence of eight years for aggravated assault was excessive. After careful consideration and a thorough review of the record, the convictions and the sentences are affirmed.

This parental termination case presents the Court with two issues: (1) whether a case manager can testify regarding facts about which she has no personal knowledge but which are documented in a case file not made an exhibit, and (2) whether the guardian ad litem of a minor child can testify as a witness. At the trial of this case, the State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services presented only two witnesses: the case manager who had only been working on the file for six months and the child's guardian ad litem. The case manager had no firsthand knowledge of the facts except what she had read in the case file which was not present at the trial and not introduced into evidence. The defendant objected on the basis of hearsay and the trial court allowed the case manager to testify under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The guardian ad litem testified concerning her investigation into the matter over the Defendant's objection. We hold that the case manager's testimony was hearsay and was not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. We hold that the guardian ad litem's testimony was not admissible pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 40 which forbids such testimony. Because of the exclusion of the testimony of these witnesses, the trial court should have granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand to the Juvenile Court for Sevier County for a new trial.

The Defendant, Ronald Harrison, was indicted for rape, and he pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of sexual battery. After holding a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion, suspended sentence and probation, and sentenced the Defendant to two years in the county workhouse. The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his application for judicial diversion; and (2) sentenced him to two years. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied the Defendant’s application for judicial diversion. Further, we hold that the trial court improperly enhanced the Defendant’s sentences in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and we reduce the Defendant’s sentence in accordance with this opinion to the presumptive minimum of one year. We remand the case for the entry of appropriate judgments of conviction.

The Appellant, Charles R. Turner, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of identify theft and sentenced to concurrent sentences of three years, with service of one year in confinement. In addition, Turner was ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, Turner raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to suppress an in-court identification by a witness; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court imposed excessive sentences; and (4) whether the trial court erred in determining the amount of restitution. After review of the record, we conclude that the identification issue is without merit and the evidence is legally sufficient to support the convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction. However, after review, we conclude that the trial court failed to sentence the Appellant in accordance with the 1989 Sentencing Act and to properly determine the Appellant’s ability to pay the ordered restitution. Accordingly, we remand the case for a proper determination of these sentencing issues.

The defendant appeals, on a certified question of law, the trial court’s failure to suppress evidence resulting from his warrantless arrest and search of his home. Because the defendant has failed to properly reserve a certified question of law for appeal, we dismiss.

The trial court terminated parents’ rights based on abandonment. Father appeals. We affirm.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint for repayment of borrowed money. The defendant, who was living in Ohio at the time, did not to respond to the complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for default judgment, to which the defendant again failed to respond. After a hearing, the trial court granted the default judgment. The judgment was domesticated in Ohio, and substantial monthly garnishments were ordered from the defendant’s trust funds to satisfy the judgment. More than two years after the garnishments began, and almost three years after the default judgment was rendered, the defendant took his first step to contest the plaintiffs’ claim, by filing a motion for relief from judgment. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal involves a homeowner’s attempt to pierce the corporate veil to reach the shareholders of a construction company. During the course of the litigation, the construction company was administratively dissolved, and the homeowner filed a motion to join as defendants the shareholders, officers, and directors. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the homeowner against the construction company for breach of contract, but denied the homeowner’s motion to join the shareholders, officers, and directors. We affirm.
 

Gibraltar Taft Highway Limited Partnership, through its general partner, The Raines Group ("the plaintiff"), filed an application with the Town of Walden's Board of Aldermen ("the Board"), seeking a permit to build a townhouse project on property located within Walden. The Board denied the plaintiff's application. The plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. Following a hearing, that court upheld the decision of the Board, finding that the Board had not acted illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously in rejecting the application. The plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court erred in its determination. We affirm.

The appellant, Mario Merritt, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of especially aggravated robbery. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant now brings this appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the decision of Anesthesia & Pain Consultants, P.C. ("A&PC") to terminate the employment of Dr. Alan Gardner. After A&PC fired Dr. Gardner, he brought this action alleging breach of employment contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and promissory fraud. The trial court granted A&PC summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims. At the close of Dr. Gardner's proof at trial, the trial court granted A&PC a directed verdict on his claims of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The jury returned a verdict in favor of A&PC on the promissory fraud claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

Matthew Lawson, by his mother and next friend, Shirley Lawson, and Ms. Lawson, individually (collectively "the plaintiffs") brought an action for negligence against Edgewater Hotels, Inc., and Stokely Hospitality Properties, Inc. (collectively "the defendants"), alleging that Matthew sustained injuries as a consequence of swimming in the indoor pool at the defendants' hotel. According to the plaintiffs, Matthew sustained these injuries (1) due to the excessive amount of chlorine in the pool water and/or (2) because the defendants failed to properly ventilate the indoor portion of the pool. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion as to both of the plaintiffs' theories. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment with respect to the plaintiffs' allegation that the defendants' pool contained excessive levels of chlorine. However, we vacate the trial court's judgment with respect to the allegation that the defendants' indoor pool was not properly ventilated. We hold that the defendants failed to meet their burden on summary judgment with respect to this claim.

Jeffrey Scott West (“Father”) filed a petition against his former wife, Sharon Ann West (“Mother”), seeking to modify the parties’ Permanent Parenting Plan, which plan had not required Mother to pay child support due to the fact she was unemployed. The trial court, finding that, since the entry of the parenting plan, Mother had had a two-year gross income of over $25,000, held that there had been a substantial and material change in circumstances justifying an order requiring that Mother pay child support of $290 per month. Mother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering her to pay child support and in the methodology used by the court in calculating child support. We affirm.

The appellant, Christopher Kirkendall, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twelve years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

This appeal involves allegations of sexual abuse brought against Wilburn Lee Brown, Jr., ("Petitioner") by his stepdaughter. After the allegations were investigated, DCS concluded there was substantial and material evidence to support the allegations and the report of abuse would be "validated" pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-7-9-.02. Because Petitioner was employed at a youth development center, he was notified that his employer would be informed that he was the indicated perpetrator in a "validated" report of child sexual abuse and that Petitioner was no longer allowed to have access to children. After exhausting his administrative appeals, Petitioner appealed to the Trial Court. The Trial Court concluded there was substantial and material evidence to support the allegations of abuse and affirmed. Petitioner appeals and we, likewise, affirm.