APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Demetrius D. Walton, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to one count of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court and the trial court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. Upon review, we affirm the length of the sentence imposed. However, we must remand to the trial court for a correction of the judgment to reflect that the appellant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender who was to serve a minimum of thirty-five percent of his sentence in confinement before being eligible for release.

Mother of six children appeals termination of her parental rights, contending that the evidence does not support the court’s holding that she abandoned the children within the meaning of the applicable statute, that she failed to comply with the requirements of permanency plans, that the conditions which led to the removal of the children from her custody persisted, and that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interest.  Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A twenty-year veteran of the Memphis Police Department was terminated based upon his involvement with a private security company, in violation of departmental policies, and his untruthfulness during the department’s investigation. The officer filed a petition for review in chancery court, and the chancery court upheld his termination. The officer appeals, arguing that the chancery court should have allowed him to introduce evidence of another officer who was treated differently, in violation of his equal protection rights. He also argues that he was impermissibly punished twice for the same conduct. We affirm.

In this second appeal of a child custody decision, Father argues that the trial court erred in naming Mother primary residential parent and in fashioning the permanent parenting plan. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with regard to either the custody or parenting time decisions, and therefore, affirm the decision of the trial court.  Affirmed and remanded.

In this consolidated appeal, the pro se petitioner, Tyrone E. Montgomery, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court and the Morgan County Circuit Court’s orders denying his petitions for writs of habeas corpus. In case number E2011- 2629-CCA-R3-HC, the State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. Because the petitions raise identical claims, we also affirm the judgment of the Morgan County Circuit Court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

The trial court awarded partial summary judgment to both parties in this dispute over the division of attorney’s fees.  We affirm the trial court’s holding that Tennessee law, and not the “modern rule” is applicable to this case as a matter of law.  We reverse the trial court’s awards of summary judgment to both parties on the remaining issues, and remand for further proceedings. 
 

The Defendant, Ladarius Devonte Maxwell, challenges his jury convictions for two counts of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentencing. After a thorough examination of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kwane Morris, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of facilitation of first degree murder and received a twenty-two-year sentence for that conviction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police that was involuntary and coerced; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of a State’s witness for possible bias; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to give a jury instruction on accomplice testimony. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Petitioner, Daylon Demetric Roberts, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding his convictions for first degree felony murder. The trial court merged the convictions into one judgment and sentenced petitioner to life imprisonment. State v. Daylon Demetric Roberts, No. 03C01-9403-CR-00117, 1994 WL 540555, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 1994), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 6, 1995). Petitioner argues that the judgment of the trial court was void due to a defective indictment. The State filed a motion to dismiss asserting that petitioner’s indictment was legally sufficient. The habeas corpus court granted the State’s motion and dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

This is a post-divorce appeal. In this second appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's ruling on his obligation as to certain expenses.  After a careful review of the record, we affirm.

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Petitioner, Dusty Ross Binkley, pled guilty to manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of a weapon in the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an eight-year sentence to be served on community corrections. The Petitioner’s community corrections officer filed a violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Petitioner’s community corrections sentence, finding that he had violated the terms of his sentence, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement, to run consecutively with his sentence in another county on an unrelated charge. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the habeas court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas court erred by summarily dismissing his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment.
 

For the reasons discussed below, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion in this case.

We granted this appeal to determine whether the return of proof of service of process 412 days after issuance of a summons precludes a plaintiff from relying upon the original commencement of the lawsuit to toll the running of the statute of limitations. We hold that the plain language of Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 4.03 does not condition the effectiveness of the original commencement to toll the statute of limitations upon the prompt return of proof of service. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. We remand this case to the trial court to determine whether service of process occurred within ninety days of issuance of the summons. If so, the plaintiff may rely upon the original commencement of the lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations.

The Defendant, Robert Glenn Hasaflook, was indicted for one count of promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, and filed a pretrial motion to suppress all his statements made to the police. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion, and the Defendant pleaded guilty to the indicted offense reserving a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) about whether the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle by law enforcement was lawful. After review, we conclude that the Defendant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that failure to return proof of service does not render commencement ineffective to toll the statute of limitations under Rule 3. I write separately, however, to address the majority’s failure to construe Rule 4.03(1), which states that a plaintiff “shall promptly make proof of service.” See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(1) (2012). Although the majority provides a brief historical perspective of companion Rules 3 and 4.03, including significant changes in the return of proof of service requirements of both rules, the majority relies almost entirely on Rule 3 to conclude that Ms. Fair’s failure to promptly return proof of service did not affect the commencement of her action.

Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State appeals the manner of service of the sentence ordered by the Criminal Court for McMinn County. As a Range I, standard offender, the Defendant, Jeremy Mulkey, entered a plea of guilty to vandalism of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, vandalism of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony, and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, consistent with the plea agreement, to concurrent terms of four years for Class D felony vandalism; four years for Class C felony vandalism and two years for reckless endangerment. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the community corrections program. In doing so, the State argues that the trial court abused its discretion because the Defendant pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment, a crime against the person, and therefore, failed to meet the minimum statutory requirements to be sentenced under the Community Corrections Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106 (2012). Upon review, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

A trial court granted Third-Party Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute where Third-PartyPlaintiff took no steps to pursue his claims against Third-PartyDefendant more than six years after Third-PartyPlaintiff was granted a new trial, and where Third-Party Plaintiff failed to comply with the trial court’s scheduling order, thereby causing additional delays. Third-Party Plaintiff appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Trial courts have broad discretionary authority to control their dockets and proceedings, and the court here did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Third-Party Plaintiff’s complaint against Third-Party Defendant.
 

The Defendant, George Andrew Stanhope, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder, three counts of first degree felony murder, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, aggravated burglary, and aggravated rape. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202, -13-502, -14-103, -14-105(a)(3), -14-403. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, and aggravated burglary. The jury acquitted the Defendant of the charge of aggravated rape and one count of first degree felony murder. The trial court merged the two first degree felony murder convictions with the first degree premeditated murder conviction. The jury imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for the first degree premeditated murder conviction. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on the remaining convictions and imposed a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary conviction and a sentence of four years for the theft conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutive to each other and to the sentence for the first degree premeditated murder conviction, for an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus ten years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to the police; (2) that the trial court erred by not allowing defense counsel to review the personnel file of a former police detective; (3) that the in-court security around the Defendant was excessive and gave the jury the impression that he was in custody; (4) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions; (5) that the trial court erred by not merging the Defendant’s convictions for theft and aggravated burglary; (6) that the statutory aggravating circumstance of the victim’s age was unconstitutional; (7) that a new trial was warranted because one of the jurors failed to disclose her relationship with the court clerk during voir dire; and (8) that the Defendant was entitled to a new trial due to cumulative error. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The employee, a sanitation worker, was struck in the groin area when he fell onto a bed frame. Within a few days, he developed swelling and infection of same. His treating physician testified that the condition was not caused by the work injury, and an evaluating physician testified that the employee’s condition was consistent with the injury. The trial court found that the swelling and infection were not related to the work injury and dismissed employee’s complaint. The employee appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter and this appeal must be dismissed.

Husband filed a petition pursuant to Rule 60.02 to set aside a provision of the parties’ divorce decree that required him to pay $80,000 to Wife in accordance with an antenuptial agreement. He sought relief under Rule 60.02(2) for fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. The trial court denied Husband’s petition and “confirmed” the divorce decree. We find that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and as a result, it did not properly exercise its discretion. We also find that Wife’s conduct constituted misrepresentation or other misconduct within the meaning of Rule 60.02(2). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Husband’s Rule 60 petition and we vacate the challenged portion of the divorce decree.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. Father challenges numerous rulings by the trial court, regarding both parenting issues and financial issues. We affirm in part, as modified, we reverse in part, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Plaintiff raises a plethora of issues on appeal from an action that began as a declaratory judgment action seeking to enforce a sales contract and turned into complex litigation involving numerous claims. On appeal, Plaintiff challenges, inter alia, the trial court’s decisions regarding the exclusion of evidence pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute, the denial of a motion to amend to add an additional party, issues related to discovery, the trial court’s grant of directed verdict on numerous claims to the Defendants, and several other rulings by the trial court. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

Unmarried parents who had been involved in extensive litigation over custody of their two children finally entered into an agreed order that gave custody of their six year old son to the father and custody of their two year old daughter to the mother.  Two years later, the father filed a petition for modification of custody, alleging improper conduct by the Mother. After a hearing, the trial court found that there had been a material change of circumstances and awarded the father primary custody of the little girl. The mother argues on appeal that the trial court’s final order was deficient because it did not specifically identify the material change of circumstance that justified reopening the question of custody and because the court did not apply the statutory factors found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) to the question of the children’s best interest. We affirm the trial court.