APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a case involving an alleged hostile work environment based on disability. The employee worked in the maintenance department of a large printing facility. He had an on-the-job accident which resulted in the amputation of his leg. To accommodate his disability, the employer created a clerical position for him. The employee's work space was a "community desk" located in the maintenance area, an area to which numerous employees had regular access. The employee reported to the employer several incidents of alleged harassment, such as grease under the desk, lunch residue being left on the desk, dirty footprints in the desk's chair, and his computer monitor defaced with a profane statement. The employer moved the employee to a private office, and there were no further incidents. The employee filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, a hostile work environment based on disability, his amputated leg. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. We affirm, finding that the incidents do not amount to harassment, and that there is no evidence that the conduct was either directed at the employee or linked to his disability.

The Defendant, David W. Sonnemaker, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's revocation of his probation that he received for his guilty plea to sexual battery. The Defendant contends that: (1) he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing; and (2) he was not provided adequate notice of the probation violation or given an opportunity to be heard. We affirm the lower court's judgment.

In a bench trial, the defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the charge of stalking. Following her release from judicial hospitalization, she moved to have her public records in this case expunged under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101(a)(1). Because the pertinent statutory language only provides for expungement upon "a verdict of not guilty returned by a jury," we find that the defendant is not entitled to expungement and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Petitioner, Allen R. Carlton, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. 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 Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment for Defendant. In resolving this issue, we must also determine whether Tennessee recognizes the "method of operation" theory in premises liability cases and whether Plaintiff's reliance upon that theory is appropriate, as a matter of law, in this case. We hold that plaintiffs in premises liability cases in Tennessee may attempt to establish constructive notice of the presence of a dangerous condition by showing a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition indicating the dangerous condition's existence. This theory is available to Plaintiff in this case to pursue at trial. Because Defendant in this case failed to affirmatively negate an essential element of Plaintiff's claim or conclusively establish an affirmative defense, Plaintiff's burden to produce evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue for trial was not triggered. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and modified in part, and this case is remanded to the trial court.

The defendant, Robert Simerly, appeals from his Johnson County Criminal Court conviction of first degree felony murder. On appeal, he claims: 1. The convicting evidence is insufficient. 2. The trial court erred in allowing evidence of non-testifying co-defendants' and accomplices' statements that inculpated the defendant. 3. The trial court erred in denying a mistrial when (a) an officer testified that, during pretrial questioning, the defendant requested an attorney, and (b) another witness testified that he had been threatened during the trial. 4. The trial court erred in the admission of expert testimony. 5. The trial court erred in the admission of a prejudicial videotape that depicted the deceased victim's face. 6. The trial court erred in excluding the defendant's proffered evidence of judgments of convictions of two state witnesses. 7. The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. Discerning no reversible error in the proceedings below, we affirm the judgment.

This case presents an issue of jurisdiction–whether the circuit court or the Court of Appeals has the authority to hear and decide this appeal from the juvenile court. We hold that the Circuit Court for Haywood County has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Circuit Court for Haywood County to conduct an appeal de novo pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159(a). The parties have also challenged the circuit court’s authority to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals. Because we hold that the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, we do not consider the transfer issue.

This is an appeal from the Criminal Court for Fentress County which convicted the defendant, Wilmore Hatfield, of felony reckless endangerment as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. Relying on this Court's decision in State v. Moore, 77 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2002), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, concluding that felony reckless endangerment was not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. The State then sought, and this Court granted, permission to appeal on the sole issue of whether felony reckless endangerment is a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault committed by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to another by the use of a deadly weapon. We hold that it is a lesser-included offense under State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision with respect to the felony reckless endangerment conviction is reversed, and that conviction is reinstated.

The petitioner filed a Petition for Post-conviction Relief September 26, 2001. After holding a hearing on the petition, the trial court denied the petition. The petitioner appealed the trial court's decision. We have reviewed the petitioner's many issues, including allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and entry of an involuntary guilty plea, and we affirm the trial court's decision to deny the petition for post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Harold Woodroof, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. 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 Petitioner failed to file his post-conviction petition within the one year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Michael Lenard Hall appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court conviction of first degree murder of his ex-wife, Pamela Hall. He claims that insufficient evidence supports his conviction, that the jury instructions were flawed, and that the prosecution denied him a fair trial through improper questioning of witnesses and improper argument. Because we agree with the defendant that the state failed to present sufficient proof of premeditation, we modify the first degree murder conviction and impose a second degree murder conviction in its place. However, we are unpersuaded of error warranting a new trial. We remand for sentencing on the second degree murder conviction.

Petitioner, Eddie Dean Hall, pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder and received concurrent sentences of life without parole. No direct appeal was taken. Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner appeals from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Kevin Tate, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. 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 Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition relating to his convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and attempted second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) the state withheld exculpatory evidence; (2) the state failed to correct perjured testimony at trial; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer, Nashville Machine Elevator Co., Inc., has appealed the trial court's award of death benefits to the widow and son of the employee, Eddie W. Clark, Jr., who suffered a fatal heart attack while driving the employer's vehicle home from work. The employer contends generally that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee suffered an injury causally related to his employment activities, and specifically argues that the heart attack was not compensable because the employee was not physically exerting himself when he suffered the heart attack. The appeal was argued before the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3), but the appeal was transferred to the full Supreme Court prior to the Panel issuing its decision. The question before this Court is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's heart attack arose out of his employment. After carefully examining the record and the relevant authorities, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. We further hold that physical exertion or strain is not required at the instant an employee's heart attack occurs, provided there is evidence linking the physical activities of the employment with the heart attack.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights with regard to two of her six children. Less than four months after the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services was granted temporary custody of the children, their foster parents filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Houston County seeking permanent custody and the termination of the parental rights of the biological parents. The children’s mother contested the petition, but the father did not. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents. The mother has appealed. We have determined that the order terminating the mother’s parental rights must be vacated because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with her children.
 

The Appellant, Joey Thomas Holland, appeals the judgment of the Robertson County Circuit Court denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Holland was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery of his minor son. Holland alleges that his convictions should be set aside because the victim recanted his trial testimony. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying the petition.

After being indicted on two counts of rape by force, two counts of rape, two counts of incest, and one count of sexual battery, the appellant, Darrell Davon King, pled guilty to two counts of rape, for which he received two, concurrent eight-year sentences at 100% service. The manner of the service of the sentences was left open. The trial court subsequently ordered the appellant to serve the sentences in incarceration. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation or community corrections. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to state on the record its reasons for denying probation and/or a community corrections sentence. As a result we REVERSE the trial court's sentencing order and REMAND with directions that the trial court make specific findings of fact with respect to its sentencing determinations

The defendant, James Anthony Hill, was convicted of possession of a weapon in a penal institution, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to thirteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in not instructing the jury as to the lesser-included offense of possession of a prohibited weapon; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (3) his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a Washington County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of an aggravated burglary; criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony; aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. The trial court merged the conviction for criminally negligent homicide with the conviction for first degree murder, and the defendant received concurrent sentences of life for the first degree murder conviction, four years for the aggravated burglary conviction, three years for the aggravated assault conviction, and one year for the reckless endangerment conviction. He raises two interrelated issues on appeal: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his felony murder conviction and whether the aggravated burglary count of the indictment was fatally defective for failing to name a victim for the underlying intended assault, thereby invalidating his convictions for aggravated burglary and first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiffs obtained two judgments in General Sessions Court. On appeal to Circuit Court the second Plaintiffs were awarded a monetary Judgment against defendant in Sessions Court, and defendant appealed to Circuit Court, where the Court declared the Judgment void for lack of  jurisdiction, and dismissed the case judgment was vacated for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal we affirm.