APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The City of Memphis and two persons who had to cast provisional ballots in the August 2012 election because they lacked sufficient photographic identification filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to have the photographic identification requirement for voting declared unconstitutional, or to have the Memphis library photographic identification card declared sufficient identification for purposes of the voting law. The trial court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing, that the photographic identification requirement was constitutional and that the Memphis library photographic identification card was not acceptable under the law as sufficient identification for voting. The plaintiffs appealed. We find that the plaintiffs have standing, that the law is constitutional and that the Memphis library photographic identification card is acceptable under the law as sufficient proof of identification for voting.

Judgment and Order

On September 26, 2012, the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2.02, appealed the trial court’s order denying its motion to have the trial judge recused or otherwise disqualified from presiding over the three cases at issue in this appeal. After initial review, this Court, pursuant to Rule 10B, section 2.04, stayed all further proceedings in these cases pending resolution of this appeal. Then, in accordance with the mandate of Rule 10B, section 2.06, that this Court act on an expedited basis, this Court, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2.05, requested and received responses from the defendants on October 8, 2012. The issue presented is as follows: Whether a person of ordinary prudence in the trial court’s position, knowing all the facts known to the trial court, would find a reasonable basis for questioning the trial court’s impartiality in these three cases? After a thorough de novo review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the State’s motion for recusal. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, the trial judge is recused, and the stay previously entered in these cases shall remain in effect until the Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a replacement trial judge, or pending further orders of this Court or the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Appellant, Carlos Radale Cornwell, appeals his conviction of second degree murder and resulting sentence of thirty-five years. Appellant cites the following errors: (1) the State failed to adequately preserve evidence; (2) the trial court erred in permitting the State’s medical expert to testify beyond the scope of her expertise; (3) the trial court improperly allowed two of the State’s witnesses to testify as experts; (4) the trial court erred in allowing improper testimony of certain lay witnesses; (5) the State improperly argued a theory in its closing argument that was not supported by the evidence; (6) the State failed to provide audio tapes of witness interviews in a timely fashion; (7) the trial court erred by allowing an officer to read aloud the affidavit of complaint supporting a domestic violence warrant taken by the victim against appellant; and (8) the trial court erred in sentencing appellant as a Range II offender and in determining the length of appellant’s sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence.

A Shelby County jury convicted appellant, Corey Noland, of false imprisonment, a Class A misdemeanor; domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor; bribery of a witness, a Class C felony; two counts of coercion of a witness, Class D felonies; and aggravated stalking, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in applying sentence enhancement factors; and (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to engage in “vindictive prosecution.” After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Pro se Petitioner, Eric Tolley, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief seeking analysis of certain evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 (“The Act”). The Petitioner originally entered guilty pleas to three counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of rape of child for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-one years and six months in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Natayna Daemarie McCullough, was convicted by a Maury County jury of facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the maximum six-year term and denied judicial diversion or any form of alternative sentencing. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) several evidentiary rulings, including an alleged Brady violation and limitations on two witnesses’ testimony; and (3) various sentencing determinations, including the imposition of the maximum sentence,and the denial of judicial diversion or any other form of alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This post-divorce proceeding involves modification of the primary residential parent designation and contempt. The final decree of divorce designated the mother as the child’s primary residential parent. Subsequently, the mother was found in criminal contempt for failure to adhere to the parenting plan; her sentence was suspended provided there were no violations of the trial court’s orders. A few months later, the mother was found to have further violated the trial court’s orders. Consequently, the trial court ordered the mother to serve a portion of the suspended jail sentence imposed in the prior contempt order. In addition, the trial court held that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred, and it modified the parties’ parenting plan to designate the father as the primary residential parent. The mother now appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Demetree Tyon Harris appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for aggravated assault and misdemeanor theft and ordering the remainder of his five-year sentence into execution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court declared the parties divorced, reserving the designation of primary residential parent for their nine month-old daughter. After a hearing the court adopted a parenting plan that designated the father as the child’s primary residential parent. The mother argues on appeal that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and made a decision contrary to logic and reasoning. We disagree and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, and that the court did not err in its application of the facts to the relevant legal principles. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Randall Turner, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief seeking relief from several convictions in the Hamilton County Criminal Court. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

This is an involuntary commitment case, in which we are asked to review the trial court’s grant of Appellee/Hospital’s motion to dismiss. The trial court found that all of the claims asserted in Appellant/Patient’s complaint sounded in medical malpractice. Because Appellant failed to provide a certificate of good faith as required under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-115, et seq. (“TMMA”), the trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellant argues that not all of her stated claims sound in medical malpractice. We affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s claim asserting a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, we conclude that Appellant has stated a claim for medical battery, as well as a claim for negligence per se arising from alleged violations of the involuntary commitment statutes. Moreover, because Appellant’s negligence per se claims survive the motion to dismiss, she may also maintain the false imprisonment and invasion of privacy claims. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

This is a divorce appeal. The parties were married for two years and had one minor child. At the time of the divorce trial, both parties were unemployed. The trial court adopted the mother’s proposed parenting plan in its entirety, based on its review of the child support history. It awarded minimal alimony and calculated child support by imputing income to the father but not to the mother. The father appeals. We affirm the award of alimony, vacate the parenting plan and the award of child support, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury found the appellant, Abbas H. Nejat a.k.a. Abbas H. Nejad, guilty of retaliation for past action, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction. The appellant also challenges the trial court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning the appellant’s membership in the Kurdish Pride Gang. Finally, the appellant challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. Mother’s rights were terminated on grounds of abandonment by failure to support the children within four months prior to her incarceration and wanton disregard for the children’s welfare, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Tommy Gayden, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to thirty years’ confinement at 100% service as a violent offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to argue during opening statements that the Defendant was calm and collected at the time of the shooting, (3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to argue facts not in evidence during closing arguments, and (4) the trial court erred by not granting the Defendant’s requested jury instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves the modification of child support. On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that Father was voluntarily underemployed, and erred in calculating Father’s child support obligation. Mother and Father argue that the trial court erred in denying their requests for an award of attorney’s fees and costs at trial. Additionally, Mother and Father request an award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This is a dispute between insurance companies over coverage related to a car accident. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the driver’s auto policy covered damages resulting from the independent acts of negligence of the car owner.

A mother and her husband filed a petition to enroll a foreign judgment regarding her former husband’s visitation rights with her child for the purpose of extinguishing her former husband’s rights to see the child. The former husband resides in Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin court declined to relinquish jurisdiction over the case. The trial court determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This case involves a petition filed in the Davidson County Juvenile Court to change custody of a minor child from his father to his mother. The Juvenile Court Magistrate conducted an extensive hearing, and ruled at the conclusion of the proof that there had been a material change of circumstances, but that it was in the child’s best interest that the father remain the child’s primary residential parent. The mother filed a timely request for a re-hearing before the Juvenile Court Judge. She appeared pro se at the de novo hearing, and did not present any witnesses or any proof. The Juvenile Court Judge declared that no material change of circumstances had been proved, but that the magistrate’s order should be affirmed. Because we cannot reconcile the internal inconsistencies in the Juvenile Court’s order, we vacate that order.

The petitioner, Charles Hall, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2007 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Robert Jesus Porrata, pled guilty to attempted second degree murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and employing a weapon during a felony in Case No. 09-00597 involving victim Cliff Belue. In Case No. 09-00598, he pled guilty to aggravated robbery involving victim Reginald Bean, and he pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery in Case No. 09-00599 involving victim Ray Heath. In Case No. 09-00597, Defendant was sentenced to ten years for attempted second degree murder, four years for attempted aggravated robbery, to run concurrently, and six years for use of a firearm in a felony, to run consecutively for an effective sixteen-year sentence. In Case No. 09-00598, the trial court imposed a ten-year sentence, and the trial court imposed a four-year sentence in Case No. 09-00599. The sentences in 09-00597, 09-00598, and 09-00599 were ordered to run consecutively for an effective thirty-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him. After a thorough review, we affirm judgments of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Jerry D. Carney, appeals the dismissal of his third petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that due process should toll the statute of limitations and that he is entitled to coram nobis relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence of the criminal activities and official misconduct of the medical examiner who testified at his trial. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

Debtors on a promissory note and deed of trust who have not made a mortgage payment since October 2008 filed this action in October 2009 in an attempt to stay foreclosure proceedings and alternatively for damages based on unjust enrichment. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims and the plaintiffs did not appeal that order. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary dismissal and for stay of foreclosure pending the outcome of the motion for reconsideration; the motion was denied. The plaintiffs filed a timely appeal from the order denying the motion for reconsideration and stay. Finding no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Chris Cummins, was indicted for first degree murder. The State’s proof included the testimony of an inmate who had been housed with the defendant in prison and who claimed the defendant confessed to the crime. The defendant moved for a continuance based on the fact that he was only made aware of this witness on the morning the trial began, and the trial court denied his motion. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the defendant was sentenced to life in prison. The defendant asserts on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial because the court erred in denying his request for a continuance. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Juryconvicted the appellant, Timothy Eugene Kelly, Jr., of one count of especially aggravated robbery and two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.