APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Juvenile Court Referee named Mother as the child’s primary residential parent and awarded visitation rights to Father. Mother requested a rehearing of the Referee’s decision before the Juvenile Court Judge, alleging that “visitation was unfairly decided.” Prior to the rehearing, the parties filed numerous petitions and motions related to visitation and custody, including requests for orders of protection and petitions for contempt. After a ten-day hearing, the Juvenile Court found that it was in the best interest of the child that Father be named her primary residential parent. Mother argues on appeal that the Juvenile Court should have applied the “material change of circumstances” standard to the evidence before it, and that, in any case, naming Father the primary residential parent was not in the child’s best interest. We find, however, that the court was correct to decide the question of custody solely on the basis of the best interest of the child since this was not a modification action. Because the Mother has attempted to prevent Father from having any relationship whatsoever with his child, we also affirm the trial court’s judgment naming Father as the primary residential parent.
 

The Petitioner, Curtis Keller, appeals the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I fully concur in Judge Kirby’s well-reasoned analysis, and also agree with Judge Stafford that the word "costs" contained in the statute is ambiguous. I write separately to offer additional historical perspective and to more fully address the implications of the conclusions reached in Jacob v. Partee, No. W2012-00205-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3249605 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2012).

I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case. However, I write separately to emphasize my reasoning in concluding that an ambiguity exists, in direct contradiction to our earlier decision in Jacob v. Partee, No. W2012-00205-COA-R3–CV, 2012 WL 3249605 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2012) (perm. app. denied Dec. 12, 2012).

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Gregory G. Spiceland, was convicted of one count of initiating the process to manufacture methamphetamine and one count of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to eight years and two years respectively for his convictions, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Defendant was ordered to serve a sentence of split confinement with one year of his effective sentence in confinement and the remainder suspended on probation. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of split confinement. Specifically, Defendant argues that the trial court should not have found that Defendant was engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct and that Defendant’s failure to complete his presentence report indicated that Defendant would not be successful on probation. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by not ordering Defendant to serve his sentence on community corrections. Following a review of the record, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Defendant to serve a full year of his sentence by incarceration. We therefore reverse Defendant’s sentence and modify it so that Defendant serves 30 days of his sentence in confinement with the balance of his effective sentence served on probation, and remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment in accordance with this opinion.

The petitioner, Evetta Mai McGee, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner entered an open plea to one count of rape and was subsequently sentenced to a term of eleven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, she contends that her plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because she did not comprehend that a "best interest" plea was actually a plea of guilty. She further contends that her plea was not proper because trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately prepare and interview witnesses. Following review of the record, the denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed.

The petitioner, John Joseph Kratochvil, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder and received an agreed to sentence, out of range, of thirty-five years as a multiple offender. On appeal, he contends that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to explain the difference between Range I and II sentences, sentencing outside of range, and the elements of the crime; (2) failing to inquire, investigate, or explain how the various circumstance in his case might have led to a competent defense involving "heat of passion"; (3) failing to investigate and move to suppress search warrants issued in the case; and (4) failing to inform the petitioner that the prosecution was statutorily required to provide a Notice of Enhanced Punishment within ten days of trial. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

City enacted an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on development of land within a 250 foot corridor abutting land owned by developer. Developer sued City asserting claims forinverse condemnation,wrongfultaking,tortious interference with businessrelationships, and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; City filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the trial court granted. Developer appeals, contending that the temporary moratorium constituted a taking and that the tortious interference with business relationships and interference with contract rights claims were allowed pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s tort claims and reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s inverse condemnation and takings claims.
 

The Petitioner, Timothy A. Baxter, appeals the Circuit Court of Madison County’s dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the administration of an estate. Decedent died testate, leaving all of his non-marital property to his surviving spouse and appointing his daughter as executrix. Executrix and Beneficiary initially agreed that administration of the estate was unnecessary. After Beneficiary suffered an injury and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease, Executrix attempted to parcel out the property to Beneficiary’s intended heirs. Shortly thereafter, Beneficiary sought administration of the estate. The trial court admitted the estate and following lengthy hearings regarding which items belonged in the estate, directed Executrix to pay the expenses and close the estate. Beneficiary did not appeal. Over Beneficiary’s objection, Executrix organized an auction of the items held in the estate to satisfy the expenses. Following the auction, Beneficiary filed a petition in which she alleged that Executrix breached her fiduciary duty to the estate by organizing an auction that resulted in waste and mismanagement of estate funds. The trial court denied the petition. Beneficiary appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Sheila W. (“Mother”) to the minor children Dacia S., Aerial W., and Teagan W. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children after finding and holding, inter alia, that DCS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) and § 36-1-113(g)(3) and that the termination was in the Children’s best interest. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm.

The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for McMinn County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Jennifer K. (“Mother”) to the minor children Selena V. and Liliana V. (“the Children”), born in 2007 and 2008 respectively. After a trial, the Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of Mother to the Children after finding that the ground of persistent conditions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(3) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that clear and convincing evidence had been shown that it was in the Children’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm.

The Defendant, Cleo D. Gadson, entered a best interest guilty plea to attempted second degree murder, agreeing to allow the trial court to determine his sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to nine years, to be served at 30%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it sentenced him because it improperly considered written statements of persons other than the victim. He further contends that the manner of the service of his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that there is no error. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The petitioner, Roger T. Johnson, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The petitioner maintains that the dismissal was error because newly discovered evidence reveals that his guilty pleas were the result of fraud; therefore, his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The defendant, Steven Hood, pled guilty to robbery and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, in exchange for an effective sentence of eight years, and the trial court imposed a sentence of incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of community corrections. After review, we affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision.

Appellant, Khalid Bashir, was stopped while driving on I-75 North in Bradley County, Tennessee. Tennessee State Troopers issued a speeding citation and searched the vehicle. During the search, they discovered a large bag of marijuana, cocaine, Ecstasy, and two digital scales. The Bradley County Grand Jury indicted Appellant for speeding; driving on a revoked license, second offense; criminal impersonation; possession of cocaine; possession of marijuana; possession of a Schedule I drug; and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the vehicle, arguing that the investigatory stop, length of detention, and warrantless search of his vehicle and backpack were unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant appeals the denial of his motion. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause and the trooper had probable cause to search the vehicle and backpack. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.

David Paul Zwarton ("the Defendant") pleaded guilty to one count of theft of property of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years, leaving the trial court to determine whether the sentence would be served concurrently or consecutively to a four-year sentence imposed by the Coffee County Circuit Court. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his three-year sentence consecutively to his Coffee County sentence. The Defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jarvis McClain, entered a guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court to especially aggravated robbery and received the agreed-upon sentence of thirteen and one-half years in prison as a mitigated offender to be served at 100% release eligibility. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. In this appeal, petitioner claims that trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons: (1) failing to explain the terms of his plea agreement; (2) failing to explain the range of punishment for the offense for which petitioner was indicted; and (3) failing to disclose to petitioner evidence discovered by the investigator. He also claims that the ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Frank L. Glavin, appeals his convictions for evading arrest, a Class E felony, and violating the noncriminal implied consent law. He argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the aforementioned convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of conviction for evading arrest, and we reverse and vacate the judgment of conviction for violating the noncriminal implied consent law.

Ken Parker (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and first degree premeditated murder. The trial court merged the first degree premeditated murder conviction into the first degree felony murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial with respect to a police officer’s testimony. Additionally, the Defendant alleges that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion by the majority to vacate the Defendant’s conviction for violating the implied consent law. On appeal, the Defendant specifically argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of violating the implied consent law. The majority vacates the Defendant’s conviction for violating the implied consent law on procedural grounds, an argument not made by the Defendant on appeal.

The Defendant, William Benton Pamplin, pled guilty to burglary of an automobile, vandalism, burning of personal property, and possession of a weapon by a felon. The trial court sentenced him to a six-year sentence, which was to be served on probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation warrant, alleging the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation by filing a false police report. After a hearing, the trial court agreed and revoked the Defendant’s probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court improperly ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered the Defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal involves injuries allegedly sustained by an employee as a result of her employment. The heirs of the deceased employee filed this lawsuit asserting numerous common law tort claims against the deceased employee’s employers. The employers filed separate motions to dismiss, arguing that the exclusive remedy for the alleged injuries was pursuant to the workers’ compensation law, and that the plaintiffs’ common law tort claims were barred. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

The defendant, David Edmond Rogers, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft over $500, a Class E felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to fifteen years at sixty percent for the aggravated burglary conviction and six years at sixty percent for the theft conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively to his sentences for prior Georgia convictions. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his traffic stop and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Brian Edward Owen, has appealed the habeas corpus court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas corpus court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.