APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In May 2010, the Defendant, John Tyler Gilley, pled guilty to aggravated burglary; as a condition of his plea, he was placed on probation for four years and agreed to pay restitution, with the amount of restitution to be determined at a later date. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $3,240, with the Defendant to make installment payments of $90 a month. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court’s imposed restitution was excessive. The Defendant also asserts that the restitution award reflected on the judgment, $9,370 (the victims’ pecuniary loss), is incorrect and contrary to law, requiring him to pay beyond the expiration of his sentence. After reviewing the record, we affirm the restitution amount but remand the case for correction of the judgment to reflect the proper award of $3,240.

The petitioner, Elijah Truitt, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct his sentence, claiming that his sentence is illegal. The petitioner’s claim that the trial court erroneously imposed a day-for-day service requirement to his 11-year effective sentence is without merit. Thus, the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petitioner’s motion to correct his sentence is affirmed. The record suggests, however, that the trial court failed to grant him credit for time spent on community corrections as required by law. In consequence, we remand the case to afford the pro se petitioner the opportunity to amend his original pleading to a petition for writ of habeas corpus and for the trial court to determine whether the petitioner was given credit to which he is statutorily entitled.

Plaintiff homeowner brought an action against Defendant builder alleging, inter alia, breach of warranty and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant builder. We affirm summary judgment on Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim; reverse summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Consumer Protection Act claim; and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant, Benjamin E. Barlow, pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Hamblen County to Driving Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (DUI), 1st offense, properly reserving for appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A). The certified question is “[d]id the officer have specific and objective facts on which to have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged or had engaged in any criminal activity to warrant a traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle.” After a thorough review of the record and the briefs we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following the defendant’s open guilty pleas to two counts of driving under the influence ("DUI") (fifth and sixth offenses), see T.C.A. § 55-10-401(2008); three counts of driving while his license was revoked ("DWLR") (one fourth and two fifth offenses),see id.§ 55-10504; one count of violating the implied consent law, see id. § 55-10-406; one count of violating the open container law, see id. § 55-10-416; and one count of reckless driving, see id. § 55-10-205, the Lincoln County Circuit Court imposed an effective sentence of eight years’ incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the length and alignment of the sentences. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Kailyn Loren McKeown, entered a best interest plea to one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”), see T.C.A. § 55-10-401, and reserved a certified question of law concerning the propriety of her detention and arrest. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). Determining that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings as they relate to the scope of the certified question of law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge.

A recording company brought this breach of contract action against a recording artist. This appeal involves only the trial court’s decision to deny the recording company temporary and permanent injunctive relief. We find no error in the decision of the trial court.

Mother of child appeals the trial court’s designation of Father as primary residential parent and adoption of a residential parenting schedule which gave the parents equal parenting time.   Finding no error, we affirm the trial court.

Petitioner, Darryl Larkins, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape, and one count of aggravated burglary. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court .

A Marshall County jury convicted appellant, Owen Presley, of two counts of aggravated kidnapping and six counts of rape. The trial court merged the two counts of aggravated kidnapping into one count and the six counts of rape into one count and ordered the appellant to serve concurrent sentences of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal,appellant argues thatthe evidence was insufficientto convicthim and that the trial court should have merged his conviction for aggravated kidnapping with his rape conviction. After reviewing the record, we conclude that appellant untimely filed his notice of appeal and that the interest of justice does not require this court to waive the timely filing requirement. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

A Shelby County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Raymond Buford, charging him with premeditated first degree murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offense and received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) that the trial court erred in llowing testimony of prior bad acts committed by Defendant against the victim. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Montez James (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of five counts of aggravated robbery and four counts of aggravated assault upon nine separate victims. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant as a persistent offender to an effective sentence of seventy years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in the following evidentiary rulings: (1) allowing “cumulative” witnesses to testify; (2) allowing a witness to testify about the Defendant’s gang involvement; (3) admitting the recording of a co-defendant’s guilty plea; (4) admitting testimony about information previously redacted from a co-defendant’s statement to the police; and (5) refusing to admit a police report containing the Defendant’s statement. The Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we have determined that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on any of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Hamblen County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Christopher Bryan Hancock, of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery, all based upon a theory of criminal responsibility. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offense of accessory after the fact, and the trial court’s instruction regarding criminal responsibility. Upon review, we affirm the appellant’s convictions of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, but we must reverse his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping and remand for a new trial for the trial court to instruct the jury as mandated by our supreme court in State v. White, 362 S.W.2d 559, 580-81 (Tenn. 2012).

A Warren County Jury convicted Defendant, Laticia Gail Campbell, of reckless aggravated assault. She received a sentence of three years, with split confinement, to serve 364 days and the balance on probation, including twenty-four hours of public service work. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction; and (2) that the trial court improperly sentenced her. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The Petitioner, Quincy Londale Scott, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the circumstances surrounding his confession to the police and failing to hire a “handwriting expert” to testify about the waiver of rights form signed by the Petitioner. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The father had a history of domestic violence toward the mother, and there was a protection order requiring the father to stay away from the mother’s older children. Nevertheless, the mother went to work and left the child at issue, a toddler, and her younger sibling in the care of the father. While the mother was at work, the father murdered the infant sibling. After that, the child at issue was found to be dependent and neglected and the mother was found to have committed severe abuse based on her failure to protect the child from the father. The mother did not appeal this ruling. Thereafter, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed this petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights, with grounds of severe abuse already established. After a trial, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother now appeals only the finding as to the child’s best interest. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Jeremy Kyle Massey, pro se, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 1999 second degree murder conviction and resulting forty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying him habeas corpus relief. He argues that his conviction and sentence are void because the first degree murder indictment was defective. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An employee filed a request for assistance with the Tennessee Department of Labor after she was injured at her workplace. After approximately six months of inaction by the Department, the employee filed a complaint for workers’ compensation benefits against her employer in Marshall County Circuit Court. The employer responded with a motion to dismiss asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties had not participated in the benefit review conference process. The trial judge did not dismiss the complaint but ordered the case to be held in abeyance pending further orders of the court. On extraordinary appeal to this Court, we hold that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of the case because the employee did not exhaust the benefit review conference process before filing suit as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203 (2008). The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the employee’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Deshaun Jantuan Lewis, of one count of
second degree murder, two counts of felony murder, four counts of aggravated rape,
especially aggravated robbery, and making a false report to law enforcement. The trial court
merged the two felony murder convictions and the second degree murder conviction into one
conviction for felony murder. The trial court also merged one of the aggravated rape
convictions, leaving three remaining aggravated rape convictions. The court then sentenced
the Defendant to an effective sentence of life plus forty-two years in the Tennessee
Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court improperly allowed the State to
question the Defendant about his gang involvement; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After
a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Plaintiff was seriously injured during a dog attack by his neighbors’ two dogs. Plaintiff sued, among others, the neighbors’ landlord and an employee of the landlord. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, determining that although the defendants retained sufficient control over the leased property, they lacked notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We find a question of fact exists regarding defendants’ notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We affirm in part and reverse in part and we remand for further proceedings.

Inmate filed a petition for certiorari, seeking a review of a decision of the prison disciplinary review board, affirmed by warden and the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, finding him guilty of certain prison disciplinary offenses. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was not filed within sixty days of the entry of the order for which review was sought. Finding no error, we affirm the action of the trial court.

Dr. Rondal D. Akers, Jr. and Lucinda Akers sued T. Ray Brent Marsh for the alleged
mishandling of their deceased son’s body, which had been sent to Mr. Marsh’s crematorium
for cremation. Following a jury verdict for the Akerses, the trial court entered judgment
against Mr. Marsh based on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but granted
his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Akerses’ Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act (“TCPA”) and bailment claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold the
trial court did not err in (1) holding Mr. Marsh liable for intentional infliction of emotional
distress in the amount of the jury verdict; (2) instructing the jury that they were permitted to
draw a negative inference resulting from Mr. Marsh’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment
privilege during questioning; and (3) dismissing the TCPA and bailment claims. The
judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

The defendant, Timothy A. Lowe, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original ten-year sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in placing his entire ten-year sentence into effect. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that the Department failed to credit him with 2,511 days of pretrial credits that were awarded him pursuant to a plea agreement. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed the petition based upon a finding that the material facts show Petitioner received all pretrial jail credits awarded and due Petitioner. Finding no error, we affirm.

Father, who was previously found to have committed severe abuse against his two children, appeals the finding that termination of his parental rights to his biological son was in the son’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm the termination of his rights.