APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Jerome Lionel Price, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, without appointment of counsel, finding that the petitioner had failed to present a claim upon which a petition for post-conviction relief may be founded. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the decision was in error because he asserts that he did, in fact, state a colorable claim for relief. We agree. As such, we reverse the order summarily dismissing the petition and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

This case stems from a lawsuit over an alleged implied partnership. Rebecca Gribble Waddell (“Waddell”) and Gregory C. Rustin (“Rustin”) were involved romantically for a number of years. After the couple separated, Waddell sued Rustin in the Chancery Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”), alleging, among other things, that a partnership existed between Waddell and Rustin. The Trial Court held, inter alia, that there was no partnership between Waddell and Rustin and ordered divestiture of certain property from Waddell to Rustin. Waddell appeals to this Court, and both parties raise multiple issues. Rustin also argues that this appeal is frivolous. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court on all issues except for that concerning divestiture of certain property from Waddell, which we reverse. We decline to hold this appeal frivolous. We affirm, in part, and, reverse, in part.

The petitioner, Lester Arnold Clouse, requests that this court grant him a new post-conviction hearing, asserting that the post-conviction court below did not address all of the issues raised in his petition for post-conviction relief nor did it memorialize its findings of fact and conclusions of law in writing as required by statute. After reviewing the entire record, including the transcript of the original post-conviction hearing, we conclude that the order filed by Judge Wallace is sufficient for appellate review as it adopted the earlier oral findings of fact made by Judge Sells. All other issues are waived for failing to file an adequate record for review and for failing to provide appropriate citations to the record. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petitioner post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Allen Doane, was indicted on four charges of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504. On April 25, 2007, the Defendant was convicted by a jury of four counts of sexual battery, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-505. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence for each count and ordered all four counts to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of eight years. The Defendant appealed to this court, and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing to determine the length of the sentences and whether they should be served concurrently or consecutively. See State v. Allen Doane, No. E2008-00125-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 21032 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 5, 2009). After a second sentencing hearing, the trial court again imposed two-year sentences for each count and ordered  all four counts to be served consecutively, for an effective eight-year sentence. The Defendant then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the judgments in this case were void. Both matters were consolidated into this appeal. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the judgments in this case are void because the statute of limitations expired prior to the commencement of the prosecution and (2) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The employee sustained a compensable injury to her arm in 2001. In 2003, she entered into a settlement with her employer that preserved her right to receive reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the injury. In April 2008, the employee’s authorized treating physician recommended a diagnostic test. The employer submitted the recommendation to its utilization review provider, which declined to approve the recommended test. The employee and her physician were notified of the denial in May 2008. In June 2009, the employee filed a petition for contempt seeking to have the trial court order the recommended test. The trial court treated the petition as a motion for medical treatment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(b)(2) (2008). The trial court found the recommended test to be reasonably necessary for the treatment of the injury, ordered the employer to authorize it, and awarded the employee attorney’s fees. The employer appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Kenneth Webster, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of burglary, a Class D felony, which resulted in his career-offender, Department of Correction sentence of 12 years. The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm the criminal court’s judgment.

This appeal arises out of dependency and neglect proceedings in which custody of the minor child was awarded to the father. The mother appealed, but she failed to provide this Court with a transcript or statement of the evidence. Due to our inability to review the evidence, we affirm the decision of the lower court.

A highway patrolman was terminated for allegedly deploying a tire deflation device without prior authorization in violation of General Order 412 and for untruthfulness regarding such. On appeal, the trooper argues that his partial extension of the device did not constitute a “deployment.” Thus, he contends he did not violate General Order 412, nor was he untruthful when he denied deployment. We affirm the ALJ’s finding that the trooper “deployed” the device in violation of General Order 412 and that he was untruthful about doing so. Accordingly, we find there existed substantial and material evidence to support his termination. Additionally, we find that the trial court did not err in denying the trooper’s request to admit additional evidence and to supplement his brief.

Inmate appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Tennessee Department of Corrections in declaratory judgment action wherein inmate sought to be given credit on his sentence for work performed while housed in county jail. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court.

The Defendant, Richard Alexander Herrera, was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the issuance of a search warrant in another case, the Defendant pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant sought to reserve a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Following our review, we conclude that the certified question of law the Defendant sought to reserve on appeal is not dispositive of the case. The appeal is dismissed.

The order from which the appellant Nader Rahbe seeks to appeal was entered on Wednesday, January 5, 2011. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, the 34th day following the entry of the trial court’s order. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, the motion of the appellee to dismiss is granted. This appeal is dismissed.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Alvertis Boyd, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The Defendant was sentenced as a repeat violent offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting two prior convictions as impeachment evidence; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a repeat violent offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The order from which the appellant Ramie Stabler-Marston seeks to appeal was entered on February 24, 2010. Notices of appeal were filed by the appellant on October 18, 2010, and October 20, 2010. Because neither of the notices of appeal was timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

The defendant, Terry Wayne Gunter, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court. The defendant pled guilty to Class E felony forgery and Class D felony identity theft. Pursuant to the agreement, he was to be sentenced to concurrent terms of one year and two years, respectively, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the court ordered that the sentences be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence, specifically probation. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences as imposed.

The order of the trial court entered November 29, 2010, from which the appellant John L. Houston seeks to appeal, is not a final order. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.

The order of the trial court entered February 16, 2011, from which the appellant Angelia Lynette Maupin seeks to appeal, is not a final order. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.

The order of the trial court entered February 9, 2011, from which the appellant Kenneth E. Ramsey seeks to appeal, is not a final order. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.

The Petitioner, Bryant Adair, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his untimely filed petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated robbery and from his effective sentence of thirteen and one-half years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that principles of due process require the tolling of the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the father sole custody and decision making authority over the parties’ minor children. The mother appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court on all issues.

In this post-divorce proceeding, Husband appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay an alimony arrearage of $86,000.00. We affirm the judgment for the arrearage and remand the case for reconsideration of the requirement that Husband pay the arrearage at $1,500.00 per month.

The Defendant, Carl Lee Houghton, was found guilty by a Henderson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-504(a)(4) (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years’ confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession because it was not made voluntarily, and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing by not giving more weight to applicable mitigating factors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Carrie D. Young, stands convicted of possession with intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to an eight-year sentence, to serve 350 days with the remainder suspended. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Specifically, she argues that the trial court erred in finding that law enforcement had probable cause to do a field strip search of her, that the trial court erred in finding that the confidential informant was reliable, and that the proof was insufficient to show that she intended to deliver the cocaine. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises out of a dismissal of a petition for writ of certiorari in which review was sought of the denial of a grievance filed by an employee of the Metropolitan Action Commission’s Head Start program. The grievance was initially denied by the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Action Commission. The employee then appealed the grievance to the Metropolitan Civil Service Commission, which assigned the appeal to an administrative law judge; after a hearing, the administrative law judge denied the grievance. Upon further appeal, the Civil Service Commission overturned the administrative law judge’s decision and held in favor of the employee; the Civil Service Commission transmitted its decision to the Board of Commissioners of the Metropolitan Action Commission as a recommended final order. The Board of Commissioners rejected the recommended decision and voted to deny the grievance. When the employee sought to appeal the Board of Commissioner’s decision to the Civil Service Commission, that Commission responded that it had no further authority to hear the appeal because the employee was not an employee in classified service and because the Metropolitan Action Commission had final authority on grievance decisions involving employees of the Head Start program. The employee then sought review by writ of certiorari in chancery court, which found that the employee was not a civil service employee and was, therefore, not entitled to a second appeal to the Civil Service Commission; the court also found that the Metropolitan Action Commission had conformed to the applicable grievance process. On appeal, the employee asserts that she was employed in a civil service position and entitled to the grievance process set forth in the civil service rules. Finding that the grievance procedure applicable to employees in the classified service is not applicable to the employee and that the Action Commission properly exercised final authority on the grievance, we affirm the action of the trial court.

This is an action by the bank to recover against the debtor for defaulting on a loan. The plaintiff bank made a loan to the defendant debtor for the purchase of real property, and the property was pledged to secure the loan. The debtor defaulted on the loan, the property was sold, and the proceeds were applied to the debt. The bank filed this lawsuit against the debtor for the deficiency. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the bank. The debtor now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to grant him a continuance in order to obtain counsel. We affirm.

In this Petition to terminate the parental rights of the father to two minor children, the Trial Court, following an evidentiary hearing, terminated the parental rights of the father on the statutory grounds of abandonment and held that it was in the best interests of the children that the father's parental rights be terminated. The father appealed, and upon our review we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.