APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Rodney Southers, originally charged with aggravated robbery, was convicted of robbery. The trial court imposed a Range I, six-year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress his pretrial statement and (2) that the trial court erred by denying his request for a special jury instruction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant, an at-will employee, was terminated from her position with St. Thomas Hospital because an investigation led Hospital employees to the conclusion that Appellant was involved in the harassing and stalking of another employee. Appellant sued Hospital and two employees for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from her termination. Appellees moved for summary judgment, which was granted. We affirm.

A Greene County jury convicted the Defendant, Kenneth Wayne Ball, of one count of driving under the influence, and the trial court sentenced him to 11 months and 29 days, of which 10 percent was to be served before eligibility for rehabilitative release programs. In this appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test despite the officer's lack of reasonable grounds to believe that he was intoxicated and despite the officer's failure to follow the 20-minute observation protocol. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Mike Littles, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.¹ The sole issue presented for review is whether the petitioner entered an involuntary plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After reviewing the matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Panel, in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Daryl Smith received a serious injury to his right knee as a result of a work-related accident in 1993 when he was employed by Tri-State Steel. Mr. Smith was awarded compensation for his permanent partial disability to his lower right extremity which included lifetime medical benefits for this right knee injury. In January of 2000, Mr. Smith fell, striking his right kneecap at a construction site while in the course and scope of his employment with Southern States Electrical and Plumbing.  Following emergency room care, Mr. Smith was treated by a series of doctors who were furnished by his employer’s workers’ compensation carrier and who provided conservative care which failed to provide relief for his knee injury. Ultimately he was released by the company doctor to return to work without restrictions or impairment. Mr. Smith continued to have difficulty in walking, standing and working on his knee and ultimately sought medical treatment at his own expense with Dr. Richard Fishbein. Dr. Fishbein performed two additional surgeries that ultimately repaired a torn cartilage and damage to the anterior cruciate ligament of the right knee.

Dr. Fishbein attributed this surgical repair to the fall which occurred during Mr. Smith’s employment with Southern States. However, the trial court found that this treatment was related to the original knee injury and was the responsibility of Tri-State Steel under the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204. The trial court found that there was no compensable injury as a result of the January 2000 fall and awarded nothing to Mr. Smith. The court ordered Tri-State to pay for the medical care as a part of their obligation to provide future medical benefits for the 1993 injury. Tri-State perfected this appeal. Although Dr. Fishbein found that Mr. Smith had an additional 10 to 12 % more impairment to his right extremity as a result of the 2000 fall, Mr. Smith failed to perfect an appeal of the dismissal of his claim against Southern States. Therefore, this appeal is limited to determining which of the two former employers will be responsible for the medical care that Mr. Smith received and any future care that may be necessitated because of this work-related incident. We find that the proof fails to preponderate in favor of the trial court’s decision and reverse.

The defendants, Carrie Ann Brewster and William Justin Brewster, appeal from their Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree felony murder, facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated burglary. On appeal, the defendants claim that the convicting evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motions to suppress their pretrial confessions. Because the record supports the convictions and the trial court's ruling on the pretrial motions to suppress, we affirm; however, we modify the especially aggravated burglary conviction to one of aggravated burglary.

The defendant, Kirk Williams, was indicted for driving under the influence and obstructing traffic. After granting a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the traffic stop, the trial court permitted the state an application for a discretionary appeal under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the effect of the ruling was a dismissal of the charges, this court accepted the appeal under Rule 3 and waived the timely filing of notice of appeal by the state. The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to suppress. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a trial on the merits.

This case is about post-divorce modification of child support. At the time of the parties’ divorce,
they adopted a permanent parenting plan which designated the father as the primary residential
parent of the parties’ son and the mother as the primary residential parent of the parties’ daughter.
Each had a child support obligation to the other, which was offset with the father paying the
difference to the mother. The daughter graduated from high school. As a result, the father’s child
support obligation to the mother was terminated, and the mother was ordered to pay increased child support to the father for their son. The trial court also ordered the mother to reimburse the father for the son’s health insurance premiums and to pay the father’s attorney’s fees. The mother appeals, arguing that her child support obligation could not be modified because the evidence did not indicate a significant variance in the mother’s income as required by Tennessee law. We affirm the ruling of the trial court as modified.
 

This is a breach of contract case. The service contract between the plaintiff shopping mall and the
defendant security company provided that the security companywould “defend, indemnify, and hold harmless” the mall for claims brought against the mall that related to or resulted from the services of the security company. An automobile accident on the mall parking lot resulted in the death of a child. The child’s mother sued the shopping mall and the security company for wrongful death. The complaint alleged that the driver of the car was under the observation of a security company agent who “was or should have been in contact with the driver” when the accident occurred. The security company refused to defend the mall, maintaining that the lawsuit did not result from the services it provided. The trial court granted summary judgment to the security company, holding that the security company had no duty to defend the suit. We reverse, finding that the language in the complaint was sufficient to trigger the duty to defend.
 

Plaintiff's action against defendant for the negligent hiring of the perpetrator of a crime against plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Judge on a directed verdict at the end of plaintiff's proof. We affirm.

In this parental termination case, the father, JCG appeals the termination of his parental rights to BJG.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The mother and father were married, and two sons were born during the marriage. The father physically abused the mother during the marriage. In 1996, the parties divorced. Later in 1996, a consent order was entered giving the father custody of the children. The order did not require the mother to pay child support. Both parties remarried, and the mother moved to Alabama. The mother exercised visitation with the children until the early part of 1999. Around that time, the mother stopped visiting the children entirely. The father claimed that
he did not know why the mother stopped visiting, and the mother said that the father and his new wife threatened her with physical harm if she attempted to see her sons. About four and a half years after the mother’s last attempt to visit with the children, the father and his new wife filed this petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights and to permit the father’s new wife to adopt the children. The father and his new wife asserted that the mother had abandoned the children by willfully failing to support or visit them. The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights but declined to permit the adoption at that time. The mother now appeals. We reverse the finding of the willful failure to support and affirm the finding of willful failure to visit. However, we vacate the
termination of parental rights on the basis that the trial court failed to make specific written findings regarding the best interest of the children, and remand for further proceedings on this issue. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Vacated and
Remanded.

This is a child support case. Father/Appellant seeks reversal of the amount of child support arrearage set by the trial court and relief from the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Mother/Appellee. The trial court’s calculation of arrearage is based upon a trial exhibit that is not in keeping with the governing orders of support. Consequently, the calculation constitutes a retroactive modification of support, which is disallowed under T.C.A. § 36-5-101(a)(5). We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.

The Appellant, Roy Edward Tolliver, Jr., was convicted by a Greene County jury of one count of cruelty to animals and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. On appeal, Tolliver argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and (2) the sentence is excessive. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

The Appellant, Ricky Ray Reed, Jr., appeals the judgment of the Tipton County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Reed collaterally challenges his jury conviction for second degree murder. On appeal, Reed argues that trial counsel’s failure to pursue an insanity defense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

In 1992, the defendant, Drama Sue Davis, alias, pled guilty and was sentenced for DUI, a Class A misdemeanor. Judgment was not entered, and the matter was reset so the defendant would have time to pay the fine and costs. She was to appear at the next setting unless she had paid the fine, costs, and restitution in the interim. Although the costs had been only partially paid, she did not appear at the next setting. A capias was issued, but the defendant was not arrested until ten years later, with the judgment then being entered by the trial court. On appeal, the defendant asserts that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-6-206, the capias was void after five years, with the trial court thus lacking jurisdiction to impose sentence; and she was denied her right to a speedy trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Barbara Ann Bryant, appeals the sentencing judgment of the Tipton County Circuit
Court, which resulted in an effective 33-year incarcerative sentence for vehicular homicide and
vehicular assault. We affirm.

I concur with all portions of the majority opinion except for that portion which holds that application of enhancement factors (9) (previous history of unwillingness to comply with conditions of sentencing involving release into the community) and (10) (defendant employed a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense), was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, though in violation of the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____; 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Assuming arguendo, for the purposes of this case, that Blakely error is subject to constitutional harmless error analysis, the particular facts of this case leave me where I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it proper to apply enhancement factors (9) and (10).

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Commissioner determined that the employee had suffered a carpal tunnel injury requiring surgery, that notice was excused, and that employee retained a permanent disability to the left third finger of fifty (50%) percent, and the left second finger of thirty (30%) percent. Employee appeals, insisting that the Commissioner erred in not making the permanent disability award to both arms. The employer appeals the finding that notice was excused. We find that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s finding that notice was excused, but that the evidence preponderates against limiting the disability to the fingers of the left hand for this carpal tunnel injury. Instead, we find the employee has suffered a permanent partial disability to the left arm in the amount of thirty (30%) percent. Judgment of the Claims Commission affirmed in part and modified.

The appellant was discharged from her job by the City of Morristown based upon allegations that she participated in the use, possession, sale and distribution of marijuana in violation of the City's policy against illegal drugs in the workplace. She applied for unemployment benefits and her claim was denied. She appealed the denial of benefits and both the Appeals Tribunal and the Board of Review of the Employment Security Division of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development ruled that she was eligible for unemployment benefits because the City failed to prove the alleged illegal drug activity. The trial court reversed the decision of the Board of Review. We hold that the trial court exceeded its authority under the applicable standard of review, and therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.

In a three count indictment returned by the Houston County Grand Jury, Defendant, David A. Langley, was charged with rape of a child in the first two counts and with aggravated assault in count three. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, in count one; of the lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, in count two; and of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, in count three. Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to twenty-three years for the rape of a child conviction, ten years for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, and two years for the reckless endangerment conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant's sentence for aggravated sexual battery to be served consecutively to his sentence for rape of a child, and his sentence for reckless endangerment to be served concurrently with his sentence for aggravated sexual battery, for an effective sentence of thirty-three years. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court's demeanor denied Defendant his due process right to a fair trial; (3) that the trial court erred in not suppressing Defendant's statements which he made on the night he was arrested; (4) that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial when the State's witnesses made references to Defendant's previous incarceration and offenses; (5) that the State failed to make a proper election of offenses; (6) that the trial court erred in not permitting Defendant to call a certain witness and in limiting Defendant's cross-examination of Officer Chad Smith; (7) that the trial court erred in not allowing Defendant to introduce evidence pursuant to Rule 412 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; and (8) that the trial court erred in deferring its ruling of Defendant's motion to suppress the pornographic photographs found on his computer after his arrest. Defendant does not appeal the length or manner of service of his sentences. Following a thorough review of the record, we dismiss Defendant's conviction of felony reckless endangerment and remand for a retrial on count three of Defendant's indictment in accordance with this opinion. We otherwise affirm Defendant's judgments of conviction for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery.

The petitioner, James R.W. Reynolds, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated rape and was sentenced to concurrent thirty-five year sentences. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), rendered the 1982 Sentencing Reform Act unconstitutional in general and unconstitutional as applied to him specifically. The habeas corpus court summarily denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the petitioner appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The defendant, Gary Hopper, pled guilty in two separate cases to vehicular assault as the result of intoxication, a Class D felony; reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; and leaving the scene of an accident, a Class A misdemeanor, for which he received an effective sentence of seven years, eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse as a Range II, multiple offender. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court should have sentenced him to community corrections instead of incarceration. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Shelby County Circuit Court upheld the decision of the Civil Service Merit Board to terminate the employment of Tanya Hollimon. We affirm.