APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Steven Malone, of second-degree murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for the second-degree murder and four years for the aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for second-degree murder, that the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody as to certain evidence, that extraneous information improperly influenced the jury’s verdict, and that cumulative error requires a reversal of his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Robert Earl Smith, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Shelby County. He was originally convicted of second degree murder and received a sixty-year sentence as a Range III, career offender. In this appeal, the petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the following grounds: (1) trial counsel’s failure to argue the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt during closing argument; (2) trial counsel’s failure to prepare and investigate the case; (3) trial counsel’s failure to challenge the validity of four prior felony convictions at sentencing; and (4) appellate counsel’s failure to argue the validity of the same prior convictions on appeal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the city council’s decision one year earlier to grant a special use permit was arbitrary and capricious.  The trial court dismissed the complaint upon concluding that the petitioner should have challenged the decision by filing a petition for writ of certiorari within sixty days. We affirm.

The petitioner, Artis Whitehead, appeals from the denial of his untimely petition for postconviction relief. The post-conviction court denied the petition after finding that due process concerns did not toll the statute of limitations. The petitioner argues that due process concerns should toll the statute of limitations because (1) appellate counsel still represented him when she sent a letter informing him of the incorrect deadline for filing his petition for post-conviction relief and (2) that incorrect information was a misrepresentation sufficient to cause due process concerns to toll the statute of limitations. Upon our careful review of the record, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief.

Daniel H. Jones (“Jones”) filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Mark Gwyn and Avis Stone (“Respondents”), Director and Coordinator, respectively, of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”), in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”).1 Jones sought to have the Trial Court direct Respondents to act on an earlier order by the Criminal Court for Sullivan County at Blountville, Tennessee (“the Criminal Court”) to expunge all public records related to a dismissed rape charge against Jones. Respondents moved to dismiss. The Trial Court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue. Jones appeals. We find that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing Jones’s petition. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The defendant, Willie McLeod, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of attempted aggravated assault, a Class D felony; disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor; and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. He was sentenced to an effective term of twelve years in the Department of Correction as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Grover D. Cowart, appeals the Johnson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

This appeal results from the trial court’s order, finding six of Appellant’s children dependent and neglected. Because there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings of dependency and neglect and severe child abuse, we affirm.

In January 1995, a Unicoi County jury convicted the Petitioner, Billy Joe Smith, of aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, aiding and abetting aggravated rape, and two counts of aggravated rape. The Petitioner was, thereafter, sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to a total of 135 years in the Department of Correction. After this Court and our supreme court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions on direct appeal, the Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Following multiple appointments of counsel, amendments to the petition, and other procedural matters spanning ten years, the post-conviction court denied relief after a full evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by (1) denying his motion to continue the evidentiary hearing based upon the unavailability of three material witnesses, (2) denying the Petitioner’s motion to reopen his proof on evidentiary issues surrounding suppression of the evidence, (3) denying relief as to “all issues” raised by the Petitioner, and (4) failing to proceed with his post-conviction hearing in a timely manner. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This dispute involves a bail bond contract which the Appellant contends should be invalidated due to illegality, lack of mutual consent and because she allegedly executed the contract under duress. The trial court found the contract to be enforceable and entered a $4,000.00 judgment against Appellant. Appellee appeals the trial court’s denial of its application for counsel fees as provided for in the contract. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

The appellant, Calvin Cathey, pled guilty in the Crockett County Circuit Court to possession of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver and received an eight-year sentence to be served as one hundred eighty days in jail and the remainder on probation. As a condition of his plea, the appellant reserved a certified question of law, namely whether the search warrant obtained to search his home sufficiently described the property to be searched. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I must dissent from the holding of the majority that the search warrant, despite its failure to name the city in which it is to be executed, nevertheless identifies Appellant’s residence with sufficient specificity. As noted by the majority, the federal and state constitutions as well as statutory law require that a search must particularly describe the place to be searched. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Tenn. Const. art. I, § 7; T.C.A. § 40-6-103. The majority also correctly points out that this “specificity” requirement is met if the description of the place to be searched “particularly points to a definitely ascertainable place so as to exclude all others, and enables the officer to locate the place to be searched with reasonable certainty without leaving it to his discretion.” State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 572 (Tenn. 1993) (citing Hatchett v. State, 346 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tenn. 1961); State v. Cannon, 634 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)).

A Rhea County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, William T. Minton, of two counts of second degree murder and one count of aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the murder convictions and sentenced the appellant to consecutive sentences of thirty-five years and eighteen years, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the medical examiner to offer testimony that lacked any scientific indicia of reliability and was outside her area of expertise; (4) the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defense to present evidence of a State witness’s prior violent acts when the defense’s theory was that the witness killed the victim; and (5) his sentence is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, John Williams, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of postconviction relief from his convictions for five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and three counts of aggravated robbery, with an effective sentence of 161 years. He contends that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a public trial and that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to partial closure of the trial and failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. Because the trial court’s order denying post-conviction relief is incomplete, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

A father and his sixteen-year-old son were sued after the son was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned, insured, and provided to him by his father. The basis for the suit against the father was the family purpose doctrine, which imposes vicarious liability on the owner of a vehicle for the negligent operation of the vehicle by a family member. Whether the family purpose doctrine applies to the father requires us to address these issues: (1) whether the father, who does not reside in the same household as the son, was a head of the household under the family purpose doctrine; (2) whether the vehicle was maintained for the comfort or pleasure of the family or solely for use by the son; and (3) whether the vehicle was being driven with the father’s permission such that he had control over its use. The essential elements of the family purpose doctrine are that the owner must be a head of the household who furnishes and maintains the vehicle for the purpose of providing pleasure or comfort for the family, and at the time of the injury, the vehicle must have been driven in furtherance of that purpose with the head of the household’s express or implied permission. The trial court granted summary judgment to the father, finding that the family purpose doctrine did not apply. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the family purpose doctrine applied to the father as a matter of law. We hold that the father was a head of the household because he had a family relationship with his son and a duty to support his son and the father furnished and maintained the vehicle for the purpose of providing pleasure or comfort to the family. However, a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the father had sufficient control over the vehicle. We vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand for trial.

In this employment dispute, a former employee claims she was unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of her gender. The plaintiff, a long time employee, was terminated after failing to adhere to her employer’s policies and procedures concerning the purchase of inventory and equipment. Claiming this reason was pretextual, she filed this action pursuant to the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq. After discovery, the employer moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding the employer demonstrated that the plaintiff could not establish that a similarly situated male employee was treated more favorably. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Anthony Murff, appeals the Circuit Court of Lauderdale 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 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 is termination of parental rights case involving A’Mari B. (“the Child”), the minor daughter of Troy B. (“Father”) and Rebecca S. (“Mother”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took the Child as an infant into state custody after both Father and Mother were arrested and jailed. The Child was promptly placed with Christopher N. and Dean N. (collectively, “the Custodians”), the prospective adoptive parents, where she has remained. Five months after obtaining legal custody, the Custodians filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father and Mother in order to facilitate their adoption of the Child. Following a bench trial, at which Mother appeared, the court terminated both natural parents’ rights to the Child based on the court’s finding of multiple forms of abandonment. Over Father’s objection, his case was tried without his presence or participation. Father and Mother, by separate notices of appeal, challenge the termination order. As to Father, the judgment is vacated and the case remanded for a new trial – our action being based on the fact that Father was denied due process in the termination proceeding. As to Mother, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that there is clear and convincing evidence that she abandoned the Child and that termination of her rights is in the Child’s best interest. Accordingly, as to Mother, the judgment is affirmed

In this inverse condemnation action, the trial court granted summary judgment to condemning authority on ground that statute of limitations barred suit; landowner appeals. Condemning authority urges affirmance of the dismissal on alternative grounds. Finding that the action is not barred by the statute of limitations and that genuine issue of material fact exists which precludes summary judgment, we reverse the dismissal of this action and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns venue in an action to recover royalties. The plaintiff songwriter resided in Shelby County, Tennessee. The plaintiff filed the instant  lawsuit in Shelby County against the defendant music company to recover past-due royalties, asserting that he was the sole author of three musical compositions. The defendant music company, domiciled in the United Kingdom, filed a motion to dismiss based on, inter alia, improper venue. The trial court held that venue was improper and granted the motion to dismiss. We  reverse.

The Petitioner, George Osborne Wade, appeals the Circuit Court of Obion 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.

When the employer refused to provide another panel of physicians following the employee’s negative drug screen result, the employee filed a motion to compel medical treatment. The trial court ordered the employer to provide a panel of three doctors for pain treatment and granted the employee’s request for attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court referred the employer’s appeal to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the cause is remanded for modification of the trial court’s order.

Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal more than thirty (30) days after the order appealed was entered by the trial court. Consequently, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This is an appeal of an award of attorney fees in a post-divorce matter. The father had filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan, seeking to increase his parenting time and reduce his child support obligation. Approximately six months later, after Father’s discovery deposition was taken, he asked the court to dismiss his petition to modify without prejudice.  The trial court dismissed the petition but awarded the mother $20,000 for her attorneys’ fees.  The father appeals, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to award attorney fees and that the amount awarded was arbitrary and unreasonable. We find that the trial court had the authority to award attorney’s fees, but due to the lack of findings by the trial court regarding the reasonableness of the fee award, we vacate the award and remand for further proceedings.

This application for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9 arises from the trial court’s decision to stay the implementation of the parenting plan that the trial court was directed to adopt pursuant to our decision in In re Madison K.P., No. M2009-02331-COA-R3-JV, 2010 WL 4810665 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010). The Supreme Court denied the father’s application for permission to appeal on April 14, 2011 and the mandate of this court was issued on April 27, 2011. Despite this, the ruling of this court has yet to be put into effect, because the parenting plan that was to be approved and entered by the trial court, and which was approved and entered, was immediately stayed by the trial court following its entry, rendering our decision and the parenting plan of no effect.