APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a health care liability case. Samuel E. Foster and his wife, Mary Foster, timely filed a complaint after properly sending pre-suit notices to the potential defendants as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a) (2012). After nonsuiting their first lawsuit, they timely filed a second complaint in which they alleged the same cause of action against the same defendants. The second complaint alleged compliance with section 121(a), citing the notices already properly sent before the first complaint was filed. The trial court dismissed the second complaint with prejudice based upon the court’s determination that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the notice requirement of section 121(a). We hold that plaintiffs complied with section 121(a)’s notice requirement by giving a written notice of their potential health care liability claim to each defendant at least 60 days prior to the filing of their second complaint. We further hold that section 121 does not mandate dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with its terms, and that plaintiffs’ inadvertent failure to file – with the second complaint – proof of their service of the subject notices does not warrant dismissal with prejudice. We vacate the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arises from the second divorce between these parties. Husband and Wife were married for nineteen years, divorced in 1997, and then married again for thirteen additional years. In this second divorce, the trial court awarded Wife alimony in futuro and alimony in solido in addition to 45% of Husband’s military retirement pay. As part of the first divorce the trial court had awarded Wife 36% of Husband’s military retirement pay. Although Husband retired in 2006, Wife had not received any portion of his retirement pay. Wife requested the court in this second divorce award her the money she should have been paid from the date of Husband’s retirement to the date of the second divorce. The trial court declined to make that award. On appeal we affirm the trial court’s judgment awarding Wife alimony in futuro and alimony in solido. We reverse the court’s judgment denying Wife the portion of Husband’s retirement pay she had been awarded in the first divorce, and we remand the case for a hearing on the issues surrounding the Survivor Benefit Plan.

In April 2008 the City of South Pittsburg hired a contractor to enlarge its sewage treatment plant. During construction of the project several sink holes developed, the last of which occurred in February of 2009 and caused the plant’s lagoon to collapse. The City made claim on the contractor’s builders’ risk insurance policy; the insurer denied the claim, contending that construction of the project was complete at the time of the collapse. The City, which had filed suit against the contractor, amended the complaint, adding the insurer as a party and asserting a claim for breach of contract against the company; the City also requested that the court issue a declaratory judgment that the losses sustained by the city were covered by the policy. The court subsequently granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and denied the city’s motion for partial summary judgment. The city and the engineering firm engaged by the City to plan the project appeal the grant of summary judgment to the insurer and the denial of the city’s motion. We have determined that the court erred in granting the insurer’s motion and denying the City’s; consequently, we reverse both judgments.

This appeal involves post-divorce proceedings arising out of numerous disputes between the parties. The only rulings that are challenged on appeal are the trial court’s conclusions that: (1) Father was required to pay uncovered medical expenses for the children’s counseling, pursuant to the divorce decree; and (2) Father must pay $14,000 of Mother’s attorney’s fees. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s decision on both issues.

The petitioner, William T. Bryant, filed a petition to test DNA evidence pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Edward Thomas Kendrick, III (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction on direct appeal. The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we are constrained to conclude that the Petitioner established that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, because it is reasonably likely that a jury would have convicted him of a lesser degree of homicide absent the deficiencies in his trial counsel’s performance. Accordingly, we must reverse the Petitioner’s conviction and remand this matter for further proceedings.

In these acrimonious post-divorce proceedings, the father of two minor children filed a petition seeking, inter alia, to be given sole decision-making authority over the children’s educations, non-emergency health care, religion, and extracurricular activities, and to be designated the primary residential parent or alternatively to receive more parenting time. The trial court found a material change of circumstances had occurred due to the parties’ total inability to cooperatively co-parent and that it was in the children’s best interest to spend more quality time with their father. However, the court found it was in the children’s best interest for the mother to remain the primary residential parent and to have final authority over the children’s non-emergency medical care after consultation with the father. The court found that the other major decisions concerning the children should be made jointly. Each party was ordered to pay his or her own attorney’s fees. We affirm the foregoing decisions; however, we have determined the father may be entitled to a modification of his child support obligation, which was not addressed in the trial court’s final order, and we remand this issue for further proceedings.

This appeal involves a claim for damages filed with the Tennessee Claims Commission, arising out of the death of an inmate while he was housed in a state penitentiary. The Claims Commission denied the claimant’s motion for a default judgment. Thereafter, the Claims Commission determined that the gravamen of the complaint was for medical malpractice, and consequently, it granted the State’s motion to dismiss based upon the claimant’s failure to comply with various provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act. The claimant appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Leonard Jasper Young, appeals from the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief as it relates to the guilt phase of his trial. The post-conviction court granted the Petitioner relief as to the sentencing phase, and the State did not appeal this ruling. A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner of premeditated first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and theft over $1,000. He received an effective sentence of death plus seventy-two years. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel were ineffective during the guilt phase of his trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the Petitioner post-conviction relief.

Following a bench trial, a Montgomery County Circuit Court convicted the Petitioner, Gregory G. Kilgore, of aggravated robbery and possession with the intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to twelve years for each conviction to be served concurrently, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and this Court affirmed the conviction. State v. George C. Kilgore, No. M2009-01539-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2483546, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 21, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. October 20, 2010). The Petitioner timely filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s denial, claiming that his attorney’s failure to adequately cross-examine a witness and to procure a surveillance video constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Jerry Louis Fitzgerald, Jr., was indicted in March of 2008 by the Gibson County Grand Jury for possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, unlawful sale of over .5 grams of cocaine, and unlawful delivery of over .5 grams of cocaine. Petitioner ultimately entered guilty pleas to three counts of selling over .5 grams of cocaine. As a result of the guilty pleas, he was sentenced to twenty years for each count, to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of twenty years. Following the entry of judgment, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied without a hearing. Petitioner appealed. See State v. Louis Fitzgerald, Jr., No. W2009-02520-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 703, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Aug. 20, 2010). This Court remanded the case for a hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. On remand, the trial court held a hearing and again denied the motion. There was no direct appeal from this denial. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in November of 2011, seeking a delayed appeal from the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. In June of 2012, a consent order was entered allowing a delayed appeal from the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. On appeal, Petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because the trial court failed to determine: (1) whether Petitioner was denied effective counsel; (2) whether the plea was knowingly and involuntarily made; and (3) whether manifest injustice exists as a ground for withdrawal of the pleas. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas where there was substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Convicted of felony murder, three counts of aggravated assault, and setting fire to personal property, petitioner, Edgar Bailey, Jr., filed the instant petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the indictment under which he was tried and convicted for felony murder was defective in that it did not bear a return date from the grand jury and that the State withheld it from him prior to trial. He further claims that the allegedly defective indictment constitutes newly discovered evidence for the purpose of error coram nobis proceedings. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

After a trial by jury the defendant, Curtis Keller, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping (against Tamika Jones and M.B.), Class A felonies; one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery (against Andrew Morrow), a Class B felony; one count of especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony; three counts of aggravated assault (against Andrew Morrow, Tamika Jones, and M.B.), Class C felonies; and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a “dangerous felony,” a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of two hundred and forty years. On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the jury instructions concerning the especially aggravated kidnapping charges were inadequate in light of State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), (2) the jury instructions concerning the employment of a firearm during the commission of a “dangerous felony” were erroneous, and (3) his eight separate convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because his crime spree “was one continuous act.” After careful review, we conclude that: (1) the jury instructions were inadequate in light of White, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) the jury instructions concerning the employment of a firearm during the commission of a “dangerous felony” were erroneous because they did not foreclose the possibility that the jury used one of the especially aggravated kidnappings—which, as stated in the indictment, were based on the defendant’s use of a firearm—as predicate felonies. As the State concedes, the statute prohibiting an individual’s use of a firearm during the commission of a “dangerous felony” expressly forbids charging a defendant for a violation of that statute “if possessing or employing a firearm is an essential element of the underlying dangerous felony as charged.” T.C.A. § 39-17-1324(c). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony is reversed. In addition, it was plain error for the defendant to be convicted of both especially aggravated burglary and attempted especially aggravated robbery based on the same act of causing serious bodily injury to victim Andrew Morrow. The defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary is reduced to a conviction of aggravated burglary, and a new sentence of fifteen years is imposed on this count. With respect to his other claims, the defendant has failed to establish any entitlement to relief, and his convictions of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Douglas Killins, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2003 conviction for second degree murder and Range II thirty-eight-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying him relief because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mario Green (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of second degree murder. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Petitioner to twenty years’ incarceration. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Nathan Daniel Puckett, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reduce his Range II, 35-year sentence for second degree murder. Because the record shows that the motion was untimely, we affirm the order of the criminal court.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting a constitutional challenge to HB600. The trial court, however, dismissed the complaint because it found Plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed to allege an injury-in-fact, that their claims were not ripe for review, and that they were merely seeking an advisory opinion. Plaintiffs timely appealed to this court. However, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we remand the case to the trial court for resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion and Memorandum to Amend Complaint and for further proceedings, as necessary, consistent with this opinion
 

The appellant, Alan Robert Benjamin, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to two counts of robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I, standard offender to five years for each offense, with the sentences to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of fifteen years. The court ordered the appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days confinement for each offense, with the remainder of the sentence to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court, the imposition of consecutive sentencing, and the denial of full probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing the appellant to choose between two proposed sentencing options. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.

The defendant, Quanya Revell Prewitt, appeals her Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of possession with intent to sell or deliver dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III substance, in a school zone, claiming that the trial court erred by limiting the scope of cross-examination of two of the State’s witnesses and that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendants, Lashun Gray and Stanley Williams, were tried jointly before a Shelby County Criminal Court jury. Defendant Gray was convicted of attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202, 39-12-101, 39-17-1324 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of twenty-four years for the attempted first degree murder conviction and ten years for the firearm violation, for an effective thirty-four-year sentence. Defendant Williams was convicted of first degree murder, attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See id. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive terms of twenty-four years for the attempted first degree murder conviction and ten years for the firearm violation, for an effective sentence of life plus thirty-four years. On appeal, Defendant Gray contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder, (2) the trial court erred by allowing the medical examiner to testify about the effects of a gunshot wound on a living person, and (3) the court erred during sentencing. Defendant Williams contends that
(4) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for attempted first degree murder and the firearm violation, and (5) the court erred in instructing the jury regarding criminal responsibility. We affirm the Defendants’ convictions, but because of inappropriate sentences, we reverse the Defendants’ judgments for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and remand the case for entry of judgments reflecting six-year sentences.

Nigel Marlin Reid, Sr. filed a complaint in the trial court. The court, sua sponte, held that the complaint is “frivolous” and that plaintiff’s claims against his brother are barred by res judicata. The court dismissed the action. Because the complaint fails to state a cause of action, we affirm.

The issues in this divorce case focus, for the most part, on the enforceability and interpretation of a prenuptial agreement entered into by Sabra Elaine Ellis O’Daniel (“Wife”) and Rusty Wade O’Daniel (“Husband”). Shortly after their marriage, Wife was diagnosed with a serious illness that resulted in several extensive hospitalizations. We have determined that the enforcement of the provisions limiting and waiving alimony contained in the parties’ prenuptial agreement is likely to render Wife a public charge. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment holding that these “alimony” provisions are valid and enforceable. We affirm the trial court’s award to Wife of 67 months of health insurance, but do so on a ground other than the one articulated by the trial court. We affirm the trial court’s award to Wife of a judgment for $16,000 based upon Husband’s breach of the prenuptial agreement requiring him to fund a retirement account for Wife. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings (1) to consider anew Wife’s request for alimony and (2) to set her attorney’s fees on appeal.

The Defendant, Michael Allen Gibbs, was convicted by a Haywood County jury of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to give a jury instruction on accomplice testimony. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court should have instructed the jury with respect to the legal status of the State’s witness but that the error was harmless. However, because the Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary is precluded by statute, that conviction is modified to one for aggravated burglary with imposition of a five-year sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

This appeal involves a dispute over an attorney’s fee in a wrongful foreclosure case filed by Client against Bank of America. Client originally signed a contingency fee contract with Attorney, who later withdrew from the case. Client hired a new law firm to represent him and subsequently prevailed following a jury trial. Attorney filed suit, alleging that he was entitled to recover his original contingency fee because Client’s behavior forced him to withdraw from representation. The trial court limited Attorney’s recovery of fees pursuant to quantum meruit. Attorney appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Petitioner, George Campbell, Jr., was convicted by a jury in Memphis of felony murder and aggravated assault and sentenced to life in prison in 1994. See State v. George Campbell, Jr., No. 02-C-01-9408-CR00165, 1996 WL 368224, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 28, 1996), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Jan. 6, 1997). His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief and this Court affirmed the decision of the post-conviction court. See George Campbell, Jr. v. State, No. W2002-00703-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 1042112, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Sept. 10, 2001), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 27, 2001). Then Petitioner sought relief via the writ of habeas corpus on the basis that his convictions were void for various reasons. The trial court denied relief and this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief on appeal. See George Campbell, Jr. v. Bruce Westbrooks, No. W2002-02086-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL 22309471, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 6, 2003). Petitioner also sought redress in the form of a motion of writ of error coram nobis in which he claimed that newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment at trial had the evidence been admitted at the trial. See George Campbell, Jr. v. State, No. W2007-00820-CCA-R3-CO, 2008 WL 2219305, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 28, 2008). This Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for writ of error coram nobis on the basis that it was untimely and “nothing in the record implicate[d] any due process concerns that would require that the statute of limitations be tolled.” Id. at *2. Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of error coram nobis that is the subject of the appeal herein. After a hearing concerning the timeliness of the petition, the trial court entered an order finding that Petitioner’s claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations pertaining to coram nobis petitions and that due process did not require the rolling of the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the determination made by the trial court. The petition was filed more than one year after the judgment became final. Further, Petitioner has shown no reason that due process would require the tolling of the statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.