APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant was convicted of robbery under a theory of criminal responsibility for the conduct of another. The defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We conclude a reasonable jury could have inferred the defendant's intent to assist in the robbery based upon his contemporaneous assault on the victim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Robert E. Allen, pled guilty to aggravated assault, three counts of domestic assault, vandalism, evading arrest, public intoxication and reckless burning. The trial court sentenced him to five years in prison for the aggravated assault and eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the other charges, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Petitioner did not perfect an appeal of his sentence, but petitioned for post-conviction relief on the grounds that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing on the post-conviction petition, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel for the following reasons: (1) trial counsel failed to properly advise him as to the potential sentences for all the charges covered in the plea agreement; and (2) trial counsel failed to advise him of his right to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial court. Finding no error, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition.

A Fayette County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Jerome Taylor, of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of more than 0.5 ounces of marijuana with intent to deliver, and felony possession of a handgun. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eighteen years for cocaine possession, three years for marijuana possession, and three years for felony possession of a handgun. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) that insufficient evidence exists in the record to support his convictions; and (2) that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the Appellant, Samuel Timothy Collins, against the
Appellee, NBC Bank, for damages he allegedly incurred as a consequence of his erroneous arrest and incarceration by the Knox County Sheriff’s Department. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the Defendant in a medical malpractice action. The trial court awarded summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. We affirm.
 

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I do so because I believe the record before us
reflects undisputed material facts that negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action, i.e., the element of “proximate causation” of the appellant’s damages. I do agree with the appellant that there remains a genuine issue of material fact for the trier of fact as to the element of “cause in fact.” I believe a jury could reasonably find that there is a “cause and effect relationship between the defendant’s tortious conduct and the plaintiff’s injury or loss.” White v. Lawrence, 975 S.W. 2d 525, 529 (Tenn. 1998). As the Supreme Court has pointed out, “cause in fact” addresses the “‘but for’ consequences of an act.” Id. However, in my judgment, the conduct of the Sheriff’s Office, once the deputies arrived at the bank and thereafter took the appellant into custody, conclusively militates against a finding of proximate causation tying the bank’s conduct to the appellant’s damages.

The Appellants, Michael Dwight Stewart and James Henry Brown, appeal the sentencing decisions of the Davidson County Criminal Court. Stewart pled guilty to aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping and received an effective twelve-year sentence. Brown pled guilty to aggravated rape and received a twenty-four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this consolidated appeal, Stewart and Brown raise the single issue of whether the sentences imposed were excessive. After review of the record, the sentencing decisions are affirmed.

The Trial Court in this divorce action awarded child support for the two children of the parties and attorney's fees to the mother. The father appeals. We affirm, as modified.

A mediated agreement provided that Husband would sell his one-half interest in Pigeon Forge property to Wife for $500,000.00, but if the purchase price was not paid in one year, the property would be sold at auction and the net proceeds divided. The property was sold at auction for $244,429.00, net. Wife claims this amount plus $255,271.00 and the trial court agreed.

A jury convicted the defendant of four counts of child rape and four counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years on each of the child rape convictions and twelve years on each of the aggravated sexual battery convictions, with two of the child rape sentences to run consecutively and all other sentences to run concurrently, for an effective sentence of fifty years. On direct appeal, this Court reversed and dismissed three of the convictions for child rape. We remanded the case for a determination of whether the remaining sentences should run consecutively. Following a re-sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered two of the aggravated sexual battery sentences and the child rape sentence to run consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty-nine years. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. We conclude that the record supports the grounds for consecutive sentencing under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(5), and the sentence is "justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offenses" and is "no greater than that deserved for the offenses committed."

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Jimmy W. Rogers, was convicted of aggravated assault. In this direct appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow him and a co-defendant to compare jury strikes; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting a video tape and an audio tape into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying him discovery of the victim's medical records; (4) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant him a continuance; (5) whether the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of the victim; (6) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial based on improper comments by the prosecutor during closing argument; (7) whether the trial court erred in its jury instruction; (8) whether the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant; and (9) whether the trial court erred by refusing to suspend the Defendant's sentence pending the appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner originally entered an open guilty plea to aggravated robbery and child neglect and
received concurrent sentences of eight years and eleven months and twenty-nine days, respectively, to be served in incarceration. She timely sought post-conviction relief, which was denied. In this appeal, the petitioner asserts defense counsel was ineffective and, thus, her guilty plea resulted from defense counsel’s ineffectiveness. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur in the result reached by the majority, and the reasoning used in the majority opinion on all issues except its conclusion that enhancement factor (7), that Defendant Brown was motivated by a desire to satisfy his pleasure or excitement, is inapplicable.

J.L. Mac-Tn, Inc. and the State contracted for J.L. Mac's provision of tire shredding services at the various county disposal facilities requiring those services. Subsequent to that contract, the state legislature established new procedures for tire disposal requiring the counties to find an end use for the shredded tires, and eventually prohibiting the land filling of shredded tires. The amount of services required of J.L. Mac under the contract were significantly reduced. J.L. Mac commenced this action seeking damages for alleged breach of the contract for shredding services. The Claims Commission granted summary judgment to the State. From that summary judgment J.L. Mac appeals. We affirm.

The defendant appeals his conviction for false reporting on the basis of insufficient evidence to support the verdict. After review, we conclude the evidence to be sufficient to support the conviction and affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The petitioner, William Romero Padilla, was convicted in the Haywood County Circuit Court of rape of a child and was sentenced to twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, he filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that counsel was ineffective and that “fundamental fairness” dictated that a different prosecutor should have represented the State at trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, William Herbert Stitts, was convicted by a jury in the Madison County Circuit Court of two counts of robbery, Class C felonies. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant on each count as a Range II multiple offender to ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to sentences for previous, unrelated convictions. On appeal, the appellant asserts that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of robbery as charged in count one of the indictment, and (2) the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Donald W. Rhea, Jr., pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to robbery and attempted robbery and received a nine-year sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for habeas corpus relief in the Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging that his sentence was illegal and that the indictments underlying his conviction were fatally defective. The trial court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a question of valuation of the shares of a withdrawing shareholder from a professional corporation. We reverse the trial court's determination that the shares had no value and hold that the valuation should have been made as of the date of withdrawal. We also hold that the withdrawing shareholder may recover the value of his shares from the sole remaining shareholder who removed the corporation's assets after the notice of withdrawal.

In this action based on a personal guaranty agreement, the Trial Court determined there were no disputed issues of material fact and awarded summary judgment on the agreement. Defendant has appealed. We affirm.

In a declaratory judgment action by the insurance company, the Trial Court held insured was entitled to recover under the policy and awarded prejudgment interest and imposed bad faith penalty. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Plaintiff, who had a pre-existing herniated disk, was rear-ended in a vehicular accident seven weeks after the first injury. A diskectomy was performed six months later. Treating physician equivocated when asked whether the diskectomy was necessitated by the second injury, testifying, "maybe yes; maybe no." Trial court found that Plaintiff's need for surgery was caused by incident and awarded Plaintiff judgment against Defendant for all medical expenses related to the surgery, lost wages and pain and suffering. Plaintiff did not present sufficient proof to establish that incident was cause in fact of need for surgery for physician could not state with reasonable degree of medical certainty that need for surgery was the result of the incident. Further, lay testimony of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's brother was insufficient to prove cause in fact of Plaintiff's need for surgery. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court.

This court granted the State of Tennessee's application for an appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. The State is seeking reversal of the order of the Montgomery County Circuit Court which supplemented the appellate record in the defendant's direct appeal with the transcript of the trial in the case of State v. Courtney Matthews, Montgomery County Circuit Court No. 33791. Although Housler and Matthews were both charged in the homicides of four Taco Bell employees in Clarksville, Tennessee, the pair was tried separately, and the transcript of Matthews' trial was never introduced into evidence at any stage of the Housler trial or at any post-trial proceedings involving Housler. As a result, the order of the Montgomery County Circuit Court is REVERSED and VACATED, and the clerk of this court is ORDERED to return to the Montgomery County Circuit Court Clerk the transcript of the trial in State v. Courtney Matthews, Montgomery County Circuit Court No. 33791.

In this appeal from the Chancery Court for Washington County the Appellant, Daniel Bruce Crowe, contends that the Chancery Court erred in finding Mr. Crowe and his attorney in contempt and in its award of attorney fees. We affirm and remand.

Petitioner, Joseph Taylor, filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was subsequently amended. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he (1) failed to adequately meet with Petitioner prior to trial; (2) failed to interview and call certain witnesses to testify; (3) failed to request a jury instruction on assault as a lesser-included offense of attempted rape; and (4) failed to object to the classification of Petitioner as a career offender when the trial court sentenced Petitioner for attempted rape. Petitioner also alleges that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to appeal the classification of Petitioner as a career offender for purposes of sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing in accordance with this opinion.