APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

The Commissioner found defendant's physician breached the standard of care in the treatment of plaintiff, but refused to award damages. On appeal, we affirm Commissioner's finding of breach, but award damages and remand to enter Judgment.

The state appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's order granting Donald W. Streck's motion to receive jail credits toward his Tennessee sentence for time that he spent in federal custody serving federal sentences. Because the lower court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion, we reverse.

Husband appeals property settlement award to wife in divorce action. On appeal, we affirm.

In this post-divorce case, Jeannette Cutrer Day Siniard ("Mother") sought to modify the parties' residential schedule pertaining to their children. That schedule provided that Caroline Siniard and Wesley Siniard (collectively "the children") would alternate weeks between Mother's home and the home of their father, Mark Alan Siniard ("Father"). The trial court granted Mother's request in part by designating her as the primary residential parent of Caroline. In a subsequent order granting Mother child support, the trial court went further and designated Mother as the primary residential parent of both children. Father appeals, contending, among other things, that Mother failed to show a material change in circumstances warranting a modification of the residential schedule. We affirm.

Action alleged retaliatory discharge for filing workers compensation claim. Employer defended termination on grounds employee was unable to perform his job due to disability. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment. We affirm.

In this dispute between attorney and client, a jury awarded the client damages against the attorney which award was approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, we affirm.

In this breach of contract action based on a policy of insurance, the Trial Court determined defendant had breached the contract and awarded compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages. On appeal, we reverse in part,  affirm in part, vacate and remand.

The Trial Court awarded child support from birth of the child to marriage of the parties, subsequent to their divorce. The father appealed. We affirm.

The Chancery Court transferred this action to Circuit Court and plaintiff has appealed the transfer. We affirm.

The defendant, Jason D. Love, appeals the trial court's denial of alternative sentences. The defendant pled guilty to three counts of delivery of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony. Following a hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. After careful review, we affirm the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing.

Following his guilty plea to two counts of theft, the defendant, Jody Lee Turner, was sentenced in the Cumberland County Criminal Court to an effective four-year term to be served on probation, supervised by a community corrections program agency. A few weeks later, the court revoked the community placement and ordered the defendant to serve his four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. From that order, the defendant appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgments below.

The matter now before us finds its genesis in a divorce action brought by Ellen Hopson Bell ("Wife") against her husband, William Hall Bell ("Husband"). In her complaint for divorce, Wife sought, inter alia, reasonable attorney's fees. She renewed her request for fees at the conclusion of the divorce trial. Without conducting a hearing, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $5,000, representing one half of her reasonable legal expenses incurred in the divorce. Husband appealed. We subsequently vacated the trial court's judgment, remanding the matter to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of Wife's entitlement to a fee award. The trial court conducted a hearing and subsequently ordered Husband to pay Wife $5,250 as an allowance on her legal expenses. Husband appeals. We affirm and hold that Wife is entitled to her fees and expenses incurred on appeal.

The petitioner, Maria Maclin, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and a ten thousand dollar fine was imposed. Following an unsuccessful appeal of her conviction, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The petitioner now brings this appeal challenging the post-conviction court’s denial of her petition. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

Homeowner’s insurance policyholders filed a complaint against an insurance carrier seeking benefits under policy and a declaratory judgment that policy language was ambiguous. Homeowners filed a motion seeking certification as a class action. The insurance carrier filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff Beckwith’s claim for benefits was time barred and plaintiff Simmons’s claim was non-justiciable. The insurance carrier filed separate motions to stay discovery and defer the class certification hearing until after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court granted the insurance carrier summary judgment against all plaintiffs, thereby disposing of the class certification issue. Homeowners appeal from the order granting summary judgment. We affirm.
 

The defendant, Monty Earl Pickelsimer, entered negotiated pleas of guilt to theft of property having a value of more than $10,000.00 or more but less than $60,000.00 and theft of property having a value of more than $1000.00 more but less than $10,000.00. The plea agreement included concurrent Range I sentences of three years on each offense and certified a question of law for appeal as to whether the defendant was denied a speedy trial under the state and federal constitutions. Because the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial, the judgment is reversed, the conviction is set aside, and the cause is dismissed.

The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contends that: (1) the State cannot maintain convictions on both murder and robbery when the murder was committed in the act of robbery; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because he did not plead to the charge of attempted second degree murder; and (3) the court erred in dismissing his petition without first appointing him counsel. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Roger Dale Cates, was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with one hundred twenty days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on probation. The defendant's driver's license was revoked for a period of three years. Because the trial court properly instructed the jury as to whether the defendant was in control of the vehicle, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, Allen Ken Kinney, III, entered pleas of guilt to two counts of sale of a controlled substance, .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, a Schedule II drug. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(A)(3). The trial court imposed concurrent, Range I, eight-year sentences on each of the two Class B felonies, requiring twelve months in jail, less thirty-nine days of pretrial jail credit, with the balance to be served on probation.¹ The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with a sentence imposed in Kentucky. In this appeal, the defendant complains that the term of incarceration was excessive. The judgments are affirmed.

The defendant, Earice Roberts, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of heroin with the intent to sell, a Class B felony; possession of heroin with the intent to deliver, a Class B felony; and two counts of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. After merging the possession of heroin with intent to sell conviction with the possession of heroin with the intent to deliver conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years for possession of heroin with the intent to deliver; eleven months, twenty-nine days for possession of marijuana; and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each assault. The trial court ordered that the marijuana sentence be served concurrently to the heroin sentence, but that the sentences for assault be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the twelve-year sentence for possession of heroin, for a total effective sentence of thirteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raised on appeal was whether the trial court erred in admitting the heroin into evidence because of the State’s alleged failure to establish a proper chain of custody. However, while the case was still pending, the defendant filed a motion requesting that we consider an additional issue on appeal; namely, the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s recently released Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___,124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), opinion on the enhanced heroin sentence imposed as well as on the consecutive sentencing ordered in the case. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the heroin into evidence; that three of the four enhancement factors were inappropriately applied under Blakely, but that the remaining applicable enhancement factor, to which the trial court assigned heavy weight, justifies an enhanced sentence of ten years, six months; and that Blakely does not affect the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. Accordingly, we modify the defendant’s sentence for possession of heroin with the intent to deliver from twelve years to ten years, six months, but in all other respects affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal in an attorney discipline case. For seven years, the appellant, an experienced bankruptcy attorney, collected post-confirmation attorney’s fees from his debtor clients using a creditors’ procedure which the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee found improper. Following the bankruptcy court’s ruling, the Board of Professional Responsibility (“BPR”) filed a petition for discipline alleging that the appellant had violated a number of ethical rules. A BPR hearing panel agreed and ordered a public censure, disgorgement of certain fees, and suspension until such time as disgorgement was made. Both the attorney and the Board appealed to the chancery court, which affirmed the public censure, modified the disgorgement order, and reversed the suspension. Both parties appealed to this Court. After our review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the chancery court properly affirmed the hearing panel’s findings with regard to the appellant’s violation of the disciplinary rules and that it correctly required disgorgement of post-confirmation attorney’s fees, but that it erred in declining to impose a suspension. Accordingly, we affirm the chancery court’s judgment in part, but we modify the judgment to vacate the public censure and instead impose a ninety-day suspension.