APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted review in this medical malpractice case to address whether the plaintiff, Carolyn Stovall, established a genuine issue of material fact as to the recognized standard of professional practice in the community in which the defendants, Dr. Lois E. Clarke and Dr. Robert McCain, practiced or in a similar community. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and later denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the summary judgments. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Clarke but affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. McCain. After reviewing the record and the applicable authority, we hold that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Dr. Clarke. We further conclude that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the grant of summary judgment to Dr. McCain. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

A Carroll County jury convicted the Defendant of manufacturing the controlled substance methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a standard offender to four years and six months of incarceration. The Defendant now appeals, contending the following: (1) that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the conviction; and (2) that the jury’s indication on the special verdict form showed its confusion with regard to the trial court’s instructions rendering the  verdict unsustainable or, in the alternative, constituting “plain error.”  Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. He argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his divorce attorney, who thereafter became his initial trial attorney, failed to attend a polygraph examination and advise petitioner of the protocol, limitations, and requirements necessary to complete the examination. The petitioner further asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by his second trial attorney because this attorney was unprepared to argue a motion to suppress and failed to adequately investigate factual allegations, review juvenile court records, call critical witnesses, pursue leads that would have established a conspiracy by the petitioner's wife to wrongfully prosecute him, and let the petitioner review the brief filed on direct appeal. Based upon our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

The trial court found the defendant, Tim Mattingly, violated the terms of his ten-year community corrections sentence. It ordered him to serve three years "day for day" in the county jail before serving the remainder of his ten-year sentence on community corrections. In this appeal, the defendant argues the trial court acted without authority in imposing this sentence. We conclude the trial court imposed an illegal sentence and remand for further proceedings.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(a) requires that the State notify the defendant of its intent to seek enhanced punishment. We accepted this cause in order to decide whether the State complied with this statutory mandate. The trial court ruled that the State's response to the defendant's discovery request met the statutory requirement and therefore, permitted the State to seek enhanced punishment outside of Range I. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On consideration, we conclude that the State did not meet the notice requirement. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The petitioner, Rodrick Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that: (1) the post-conviction court erred by failing to make findings and conclusions as to each issue; (2) the jury instructions provided by the trial court lowered the State's burden of proof; (3) the trial court erred in not instructing as to the lesser-included offense of facilitation; and (4) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition.

The State appeals the trial court's suppression of twenty-five rocks of cocaine seized from the defendant. Because the trial court "did not feel comfortable" in elaborating the reason why the evidence should be suppressed, we remand for the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition following his nolo contendere pleas to aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and evading arrest. He contends his trial counsel did not provide him with effective assistance when he entered into the plea agreement. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Steve Mason, brings the instant appeal of the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for relief. The petitioner stands convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. In this appeal, he alleges that he is entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis that the facts introduced at trial are insufficient to support his convictions and because he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The defendant appeals her sentence of four years for voluntary manslaughter. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her any form of alternative sentencing. We conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After the death of their elderly mother, her sons discovered that the decedent's stepson and his wife had used a power of attorney to transfer the funds from the decedent's $20,000 CD to themselves. The decedent's son filed a petition to have the money restored to her estate. The trial court held that the CD was a valid inter vivos gift from the decedent. We reverse, because there is no evidence in the record that such a gift was ever made.

The petitioner, Charles W. Cole, pled guilty on February 4, 2000, to five sexual offenses and, in January 2001, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the dismissal of the petition

The Appellant, Andrew Cole, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Gibson County Circuit Court. Cole is currently incarcerated as a result of his jury convictions for attempted first degree murder, attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Cole raises the issues of: (1) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint “new counsel” for him at trial; and (3) whether he was improperly sentenced as a multiple offender. After review of the issues, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant appeals his conviction of rape and his ten-year sentence. The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erroneously allowed the victim to testify, and that expert testimony should not have been admitted into evidence. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in sentencing. After careful review, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and the trial court did not err. We affirm the conviction and the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Evelyn Holly was convicted of second degree murder following a jury trial. Defendant now challenges her conviction arguing that the trial court erred in not suppressing her statement to the police. Defendant also contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction of second degree murder. Specifically, Defendant argues that the evidence showed that she and the victim, Ronald Kyles, were engaged in mutual combat at the time of the killing and requests this court to reduce her conviction to voluntary manslaughter. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm Defendant's conviction for second degree murder.