APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Carter Masters, was convicted by a jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty years for each kidnapping, four years for the burglary, and three years for the aggravated assault. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that he was denied due process because the mental health expert retained by trial counsel was incompetent. In the alternative, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to select a competent psychologist. The defendant also asserts that his due process rights were offended by the state's cross-examination of the defense psychologist. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The appellant, Eric T. Armstrong, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sixteen year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the motion to suppress Lara Carter's identification of the appellant, the constitutionality of the jury venire, and his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping under State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a restaurant's liability for the conduct of an employee who verbally abused and bumped a customer. The customer filed suit against the restaurant in the Circuit Court for Wilson County seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the restaurant a summary judgment and the customer appealed. The sole issue on appeal is whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he harassed and bumped the customer. Because we find as a matter of law the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment, we affirm the summary judgment.

The trial court found Plaintiff was the owner of disputed stock, but had failed to prove monetary damages. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings regarding damages.

The defendant, Salvatore Brunetti, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the probation of Defendant, Jamie Michelle Crawford, and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. Defendant does not appeal the revocation of her probation but argues that the trial court erred in not imposing a sentence of split confinement. After a thorough review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking probation and ordering Defendant to serve her sentence in confinement.

Petitioner, Jerry W. Dickerson, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges that his conviction and sentence are void because the trial record was improperly authenticated and contained inaccuracies. Following a review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Robert L. Drew, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue is whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Billy Gene Rich, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, and was sentenced to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. On appeal, Rich argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) his sentence is excessive. After review, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

The petitioner, David Johnson Hartsell, appeals the order of the Circuit Court for Washington County dismissing his post-conviction relief petition. 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 fails to present a cognizable claim for relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Donald Keel, was convicted in the Gibson County Circuit Court of aggravated
perjury, felon in possession of a handgun, and assault. Keel’s sentence for aggravated perjury was imposed consecutively to his concurrent sentences for unlawful weapon possession and assault. On appeal, he raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for aggravated perjury and (2) whether consecutive sentencing is proper. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction and subsequent sentencing decision.

The defendant, David Hester, pled guilty to statutory rape. The trial court imposed a one-year sentence to be served on supervised probation and directed community service. In this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This case involves two Rule 12.02(6) motions to dismiss converted to motions for summary judgment through the filing of additional affidavits with Plaintiff’s response to these motions. Although the trial court dismissed all claims against Defendants for failure to state a claim under Rule 12.02(6), we must review the evidence using a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment standard. Plaintiff alleged numerous business torts, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation in this action against Defendants. However, Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence from which a jury could return a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on any count alleged. The trial court also granted Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, but on summary judgment grounds.

The defendant, Anthony Lebron Carter, appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves a claim for negligence brought by Appellant, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant filed a claim with the Tennessee Division of Claims Administration, which was subsequently transferred to the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Commission determined the claim was time barred, and Appellant appealed this decision to this Court. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
 

While I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Demers’s claims in this case, I write separately to point out that the outcome may very well have been different had we employed the standard customarily used to review orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss. However, by using affidavits to oppose the motion to dismiss, Mr. Demers has succeeded in converting the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to a motion for summary  Thus, rather than reviewing Mr. Demers’s amended complaint to determine whether it states claims upon which relief can be granted, we need only determine whether, based on the undisputed facts, the defendants have demonstrated that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

This appeal involves an order of protection. After several public confrontations with his former girlfriend, the petitioner sought an order of protection from the Chancery Court for Sumner County. The trial court granted the order of protection, and the former girlfriend appealed to this court. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's decision, we affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order, which increases Appellant/Father’s child support obligation to an amount consistent with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to consider his extensive visitation with the child in declining to deviate downward from the guidelines. We affirm.

This appeal involves the juvenile court's termination of parental rights to two children, A.L.B. (d.o.b. 10/25/96), and B.L.B. (d.o.b. 12/01/98). Appellant argues that the trial court's findings regarding abandonment of the children, persistent conditions, and the children's best interests are unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the trial court.

The Appellant, Timerell Nelson, appeals the verdict of a Shelby County jury finding him guilty of first degree felony murder. On appeal, Nelson raises the single issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. After review, we find the evidence to be more than sufficient. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

In this appeal an unsuccessful plaintiff seeks review of a jury verdict approved by the trial court, in favor of the defendant manufacturer. We affirm.

The plaintiffs bring this appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.

The Appellant, Darrell Sanderlin, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Haywood County Circuit Court. Sanderlin pled guilty to one count of child abuse of his six-year-old son, a class D felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, with the length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years incarceration. On appeal, Sanderlin argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, the sentencing decision is affirmed.

The majority has determined that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant owed her a duty and that the plaintiff was responsible for no less that 50% of her own injuries. I respectfully disagree.