APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing an inmate’s petition for common law writ of certiorari. Because the inmate did not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal.
 

This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights that was filed in 2005. At the hearing, the Father consented to the termination of his parental rights, so the trial court entered an order terminating his parental rights without making findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding grounds for termination and the children’s best interest. Father subsequently challenged the trial court’s order on appeal, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to hold a new hearing and prepare an order with the requisite findings. On remand, the trial court found that Father had not abandoned the children by willfully failing to visit them or by willfully failing to support them, and therefore it declined to terminate his parental rights. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I concur fully in the majority’s finding that Father abandoned his children by willful failure to visit them. I must reluctantly dissent from the majority’s finding that Father’s child support payments during the pivotal four-month period amounted to abandonment by willful failure to support. The trial court viewed Father’s testimony and considered his payment history during the four-month period, and found no willful intent to abandon. While Father clearly had the means to pay his full child support obligation, in view of the trial court’s finding and the evidence on his payments, I must respectfully disagree that the record shows by clear and convincing evidence abandonment by failure to support.

The petitioner, charged with first degree premeditated murder and other crimes, entered best interest guilty pleas and received an effective sentence of life without parole. After an unsuccessful petition for post-conviction relief challenging the effectiveness of his trial counsel, he filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging newly discovered, exculpatory ballistic evidence. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Wlodarz v. State, No. E2008-02179-CCA-R3-CO, 2010 WL 1998766 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 19, 2010). We granted the application for permission to appeal to consider whether a petitioner who has entered guilty pleas may challenge his convictions by writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the terms of our statute. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26105(b) (2006). While we have determined that the petitioner did not forfeit the procedural remedy of writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence by entering the guiltypleas,the evidence in this instance does notqualifyas newlydiscovered. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
 

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Wlodarz has not presented newly discovered evidence to support his effort to use a writ of error coram nobis to set aside his guilty plea. I write separately, however, because I cannot concur with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Wlodarz is entitled to challenge his guilty plea using a writ of error coram nobis.
 

A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Tyrone Ralph Wright, of one count of theft of property under $500 and one count of forgery over $1000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to an effective sentence of twelve years. The Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of an uncharged forgery; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to charge the jury on a lesser included offense; (4) the identification of the Defendant submitted at trial violated the “physical facts rule;” (5) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (6) he was denied his right to allocution at the sentencing hearing; and (7) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that there is no error in the judgments of the trial court, and we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In this case the grandparents were awarded temporary custody of the mother's two minor children after the Court determined the children were dependent and neglected in the mother's care. Subsequently, the Trial Court set child support payments from the mother to the grandparents based on the mother's social security disability benefits income. The mother has appealed to this Court, and argues that the Trial Court erred in setting the amount of the mother's child support payments and contends that social security benefits are not subject to garnishment. We affirm the Trial Judge on all issues and remand.

The pro se petitioner, Khalfani Marion, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing to consider whether due process tolled the statute of limitations in his case. The State concedes that an evidentiary hearing should have been held to determine whether the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the petitioner’s trial counsel’s having failed to timely inform him of our supreme court’s denial of his application for permission to appeal. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the circumstances require that the statute of limitations be tolled in this case.

The petitioner, Gerald Lee Powers, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1998, he was convicted of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery. His convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383, 387 (Tenn. 2003), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038, 123 S. Ct. 2083 (2003). On appeal, the petitioner presents a number of issues: trial counsel were ineffective in selection of jurors; the trial court erred in not allowing individual voir dire and limiting counsel’s voir dire questioning; trial counsel were ineffective because they had excessive caseloads and did not object to long trial days; trial counsel failed to investigate certain evidence; trial counsel were ineffective as to expert witnesses; trial counsel were ineffective in presentation of other suspects to the homicide; trial counsel were ineffective in their witness interviews and failed to locate certain relevant witnesses; the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to reasonable doubt; the State failed to produce exculpatory evidence and to preserve certain evidence; the trial court should have disqualified itself; trial counsel failed to object to the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(c); and imposition of the death penalty is unconstitutional. We have carefully reviewed each of these claims and conclude, as did the post-conviction court, that they are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order of that court denying the petition for post-conviction relief.

Father appeals from his conviction of eighteen counts of criminalcontempt for willful failure to pay bi-weekly child support obligations over a thirteen-month period. The record demonstrates that Father was hospitalized and incarcerated for a portion of the relevant period, and unable to make some of the payments, but the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to sixteen (16) counts. We therefore, affirm the conviction of sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) counts of criminal contempt and revise the total sentence from 180 days to 160 days.
 

This appeal involves the “spousal impoverishment” provision of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (“MCCA”). Thomas Crisel (“Husband”) was placed in a nursing home for health-related problems. Subsequently, Carol Crisel (“Wife”) filed a complaint against Husband in which she sought spousal support in the form of a transfer of the family residence and all of his income. The trial court granted Wife’s request and filed an order reflecting its decision. Upon receiving notice of the order, the Tennessee Department of Human Services (“TDHS”) filed a motion to intervene and to set aside the order pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied the motion. TDHS appeals. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instruction to the trial court to reconsider Wife’s complaint for spousal support with TDHS participating as an intervening party.

The appellant, Christopher M. Foster, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to robbery and received a five-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting him another alternative sentence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action based on a contract, the Trial Court granted plaintiff summary judgment and ultimately certified the judgment as final, pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. Defendant had filed a counterclaim against plaintiff based on the same contracts that was the basis of plaintiff's summary judgment. Defendant has appealed, insisting the Trial Court abused its discretion in certifying the judgment as final. We hold the Trial Court abused its discretion in certifying the judgment as final and dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff employer confronted with a worker's compensation claim by its employee filed an action for declaratory judgment, injunction relief, and a petition for certiorari against the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and the employee. Plaintiff's principal contention was that the Department of Labor prepared an order for medical benefits directing the employer to provide the employee with additional panels of physicians from which he could choose for treatment, and concluded by averring that it was threatened with a $10,000 penalty if it did not comply. The Trial Court initially issued a restraining order, but the Trial Court ultimately concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the issues because suit had been filed before the administrative review process was exhausted. Plaintiff appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court, and remand.

Builder was hired to construct a commercial building, and it purchased the concrete for the building’s concrete slab from Supplier. The concrete slab developed major cracks, which led to this lawsuit between Builder and Supplier. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found that Supplier had delivered defective concrete, and it entered judgment in favor of
Builder for $60,000. We affirm.

The employee, a registered nurse, injured her neck and lower back when she slipped and fell in a pool of water. She had surgical fusions of the cervical and lumbar spine. She continued to have serious symptoms for which she received numerous medications. Her treating physician testified that she was incapable of performing any nursing functions, including those that required only sedentary work. The trial court found her to be permanently and totally disabled. Her employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding on disability and that the employee should be held to have been offered a meaningful return to work. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted each of the appellants, Charles Jackson and Willis Holloway, of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; and one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. After a sentencing hearing, they received effective forty-four-year sentences. On appeal, the appellants contend that (1) the trial court erred by refusing to allow them to cross-examine a co-defendant about her engaging in prostitution before the crimes; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the co-defendant’s complete written statement into evidence; (3) the trial court erred by giving each juror a copy of the statement; (4) the trial court erred by failing to redact the statement; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the co-defendant’s complete statement into evidence but that the error was harmless. Therefore, the appellants’ convictions are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Tony Scott Walker, appeals the Circuit Court of Gibson County’s dismissal 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.

A Blount County jury convicted the Defendant of theft of properly valued between $1,000 and $10,000, and the trial court sentenced him to three years on supervised probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation warrant, alleging that the Defendant had violated his probation by, among other things, committing new offenses. The trial court agreed and ordered him to serve 90 days in jail and then return to probation. The Defendant then pled guilty to forgery and identity theft and, pursuant to a plea agreement, was sentenced to probation. The Defendant’s probation officer then filed another probation violation warrant alleging that the Defendant had violated his probation in both cases by, among other things, committing theft. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The State of Tennessee appeals as of right the Warren County Circuit Court’s dismissal of three counts of an indictment charging the defendant, Angela M. Merriman, with driving under the influence (DUI), second offense; felony reckless endangerment; and reckless driving. Following our review of a destruction of evidence issue under an abuse of discretion rather than a de novo standard, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

In 2006, the Defendant, Jamaal M. Mayes, pled guilty to one count of attempted second degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court entered the agreed upon sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served as a multiple offender. In 2011, the Defendant filed a pro se “motion; application to void the judgment.” The trial court denied the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Polk County jury convicted the Defendant, Grover L. Parks, of theft of property valued over $10,000 and less than $60,000, and the trial court sentenced him to five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to disqualify the special prosecutor from prosecuting the case. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists no error. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal arises out of dependency and neglect proceedings regarding three minor children.  The circuit court found all three children dependent and neglected, and it found the youngest child had been severely abused. We affirm

The employee, a truck driver, was injured in the course and scope of his employment when his vehicle left the road and turned over. His employer denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits, contending that the accident and resulting injuries were the direct result of the employee’s willful violation of the employer’s safetyrules. The trialcourt found that the employee had willfully and intentionally disregarded the safety rules and entered judgment for the employer. On appeal,the employee contends that the trial court erred because the evidence did not establish the perverseness of his conduct, a necessary element of the misconduct affirmative defense. We affirm the judgment.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, LeDarren S. Hawkins, of first degree murder and tampering with evidence, and the trial court sentenced him to serve an effective life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court refused to instruct the jury regarding the defense of a third person as an affirmative defense. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.