APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Claim Commissioner held Commission was without jurisdiction to entertain claim on appeal. We vacate Judgment and remand.

Beneficiary of will appeals the order of the chancery court awarding attorney fees, executor fees, and other expenses. Both factual and legal objections are made to the awards made by the court. The legal objections are without merit, and the factual objections are not well-taken, because there is no transcript or statement of the evidence. We affirm.

The petitioner, Rodney McKinney, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his claim for writ of habeas corpus. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A typewritten document and a handwritten document prepared later in time were offered for probate. The Trial Court rejected the handwritten document and admitted the typewritten document to probate as the Last Will and Testament of Deceased. On appeal, we reverse.

This case arises from the discovery of an extramarital affair. The Appellants brought suit against
Appellee, seeking damages on theories of outrageous conduct and interference with a contract.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss and this appeal followed. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Defendant, Janice Michele Walker, was charged in a four-count presentment with theft over $10,000, forgery over $10,000, computer fraud, and money laundering. Defendant pled guilty as a Range I standard offender to theft and forgery, both Class C felonies, and the other charges were dismissed. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, Defendant was sentenced to four years for each offense, to be served consecutively, and she was ordered to pay restitution. The trial court determined the manner of service of Defendant's sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve her effective eight-year sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of full probation. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Anthony C. Long, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We reverse the dismissal and order habeas corpus relief.

A Marion County jury convicted the defendant, Marvin Glenn White, of two counts of premeditated first degree murder for which he received concurrent life sentences. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in admitting statements which constituted double hearsay. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

We granted review in this case to consider whether an employee is barred from seeking workers’ compensation benefits in Tennessee because the employee made a binding election of remedies by pursuing benefits for the same injury in another state. We hold that the employee’s filing of a claim in South Carolina, his request for a hearing there, and the taking of depositions in that matter constitute affirmative acts to obtain benefits in another state sufficient to constitute a binding election of remedies that bars the employee’s Tennessee claim. Therefore, we reject the conclusion of the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel on this issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Bruce Franks, Jr., pleaded guilty to arson, a Class C felony, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-301(a)(1) (2003), and agreed to a three-year, Range I sentence. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing to determine themanner of service of the sentence and ordered split confinement.  The defendant appeals the confinement component of his sentence. We affirm.

A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that H. Owen Maddux had wilfully and deliberately converted funds from his law firm. In addition to other sanctions, the hearing panel suspended Maddux from the practice of law for a period of thirty days. The Chancery Court for Hamilton County affirmed the judgment of the hearing panel but imposed additional sanctions. Disciplinary Counsel appealed to this Court, contesting only the sufficiency of the thirty-day suspension. We hold that the thirty-day suspension is appropriate. We affirm.

We granted permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether the liability of a surety company that issues bonds to self-insured employers under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-405(b) is limited to the penal amount listed on the face of each bond. Because section 50-6-405(b) requires that bonds be of a single, continuous term, we conclude that a surety company’s liability is limited to the penal amount on the face of the bonds. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. However, I disagree with its conclusion that a sentence of split confinement fulfills the requirement of an alternative sentencing presumption. I believe an alternative sentence means one that is an alternative to confinement, as explained in my dissent in State v. Christina B. Jones, M2002-02428-CCA-R3-CD, Williamson County (Tenn. Crim. App. June 23, 2003), app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 27, 2003).

The defendant, Robert “Bobby” Powell, pled guilty to statutory rape and sexual battery, Class E felonies, in exchange for an effective two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Finding that a sentence less serious than confinement would depreciate the seriousness of the offenses, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for probation or other alternative sentencing and ordered that he serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion to reconsider, and the defendant appealed to this court. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Timothy E. Ballard, was convicted of DUI, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor, and was sentenced to an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended except for sixty days, with the balance to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, he argues that his sentence is excessive and that the trial court erred in denying full probation or alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial court awarded Petitioner alimony arrearages of $7,250 plus interest. Respondent appeals, asserting the statute of limitations and the defense of laches. We modify the judgment of the trial court and remand.

We have this case on direct appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, from an order of the Chancery Court suspending Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esq., from the practice of law for three years. Slavin appeals, raising the following issues: (1) whether Chancellor Richard E. Ladd erred in refusing to recuse himself; (2) whether Slavin's in-court speech is protected by the First Amendment; and (3) whether the sanctions imposed by the Chancellor are excessive. Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that Chancellor Ladd did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself and that the speech at issue does not fall within the protective ambit of the First Amendment. After a thorough examination of the sanctions, we impose a two-year suspension. Slavin may, however, apply for reinstatement pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 19.3, at the expiration of one year from date of this opinion.

The petitioner, Carlos Haynes, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to one count of possession of over one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to sell and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. He received a total effective sentence of two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel was ineffective and the trial court erred in failing to pursue the issue of the identity of the confidential informant whose tip led to the search of the petitioner’s home. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Plaintiffs appeal from trial court's dismissal of complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs allege that trial court erred in finding that Plaintiffs had no standing to challenge annexation ordinance passed by City of Murfreesboro. Finding that the trial court was correct in determining that Plaintiffs were not entitled to challenge the annexation ordinance under Tennessee declaratory judgment statute, we affirm.

We granted permission to appeal to determine whether the amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9)(A), effective June 2, 2003, applies retroactively to this parental termination case. Prior to the 2003 amendment, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) (2001) provided as follows:

Plaintiff sought rescission of a purchase of real property, and damages pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act. The Trial Court held plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof on the issues presented. On appeal, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for Defendant/Appellee. Plaintiff/Appellant, a minor, was allegedly injured when an integrated car seat in a vehicle manufactured and sold by Defendant/Appellee malfunctioned. Plaintiff/Appellant asserts that: (1) the jurors conducted unauthorized experimentation with certain exhibits, which constituted extraneous prejudicial information under Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b); (2) that there is no material evidence on which the jury could have based its verdict; (3) that the trial judge failed to properly perform her duty as thirteenth juror; (4) that the trial court erred in allowing an expert to testify outside the scope of his expertise in violation of McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997); and (5) that the trial court erred, either under Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and 704 or on the theory of judicial estoppel, in excluding a portion of the testimony of a second expert. We affirm.