APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Alvin Young, of aggravated kidnapping and domestic assault. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eight years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated kidnapping conviction and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Kimberly Mangrum, was indicted by the Dickson County Grand Jury for especially aggravated burglary, especially aggravated kidnapping, first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and four counts of criminal conspiracy, related to the commission of each of those offenses. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary, especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted first degree premeditated murder, and felony murder. Her conviction for attempted first degree premeditated murder was merged into her felony murder conviction, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment for her first degree felony murder conviction, twenty-five years for especially aggravated kidnapping, and six years for aggravated burglary, with the sentences to be served concurrently. In this direct appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and asserts that the trial court erred by not dismissing the indictment following what, Defendant contends, was the State’s misuse of the grand jury proceedings. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief alleging (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty plea to aggravated assault; and (2) that his plea was not voluntary as constitutionally required. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

While touring a model home in a new residential home development, the plaintiff fell when she failed to see a four-inch step as she walked from the foyer into the sunken living room. This premises liabilityaction followed. The defendant constructed, owned, and managed the model home in which the plaintiff fell. Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court summarily dismissed the complaint upon two findings: that the defendant did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was more than fifty percent at fault. We affirm upon the finding that the plaintiff cannot establish that a duty was owed to her by the defendant.
 

Appellant, Antonio Durrell Hubbard a/k/a Antonio Bradford, was indicted by the Fayette County Grand Jury in March of 2010 for possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver, driving with a suspended license, and speeding. Prior to trial, Appellant sought to suppress the results of an inventory search. The motion to suppress was denied. After a trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver and driving on a suspended license. The speeding charge was dismissed. As a result of the convictions, Appellant received an effective sentence of one year. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant has appealed. The following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. After a review, we determine the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress and the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Derrick Rice (“the Defendant”) appeals jury convictions for first degree premeditated murder and attempted first degree premeditated murder, claiming that the trial court erred in denying extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the testimony of a witness and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions.

The Memphis Police Department terminated the employment of Petitioner Police Officer for conduct unbecoming an officer following a physical altercation with a parking lot attendant. On appeal pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, the chancery court affirmed. On appeal to this Court, Petitioner asserts the trial court erred by refusing to admit additional evidence of disparate treatment in violation of his equal protection rights. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns a note executed by Robert Denton (“Husband”) and Susan L. Denton (“Wife”) and payable to Husband’s sister, Carolyn L. Denton-Preletz (“Lender”). When Lender sought recovery of the note, Wife denied liability and filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the statute of limitations for recovery of the note had passed. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case as it related to Wife. Lender filed a motion to alter or amend the order and a motion to amend the complaint, which were denied. Lender appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the defendant, Kenneth Edward Watts, of vandalism resulting in $10,000 to $60,000 in damages, a Class C felony, and theft of property under $10,000, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years for the Class C felony and as a career offender to twelve years for the Class D felony. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify as to the estimated cost of repair; that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and that the trial court improperly calculated his sentencing range. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, James David Moats, stands convicted of driving under the influence (“DUI”), fourth or greater offense, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and motion for judgment of acquittal. Following our review, we conclude that under the facts of this case the police officer seized the defendant when she pulled up behind the defendant’s parked vehicle and activated her blue emergency lights. We further conclude that the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the seizure. As such, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dib Driver, was found guilty by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony; six counts of attempted solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony; two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony; two counts of attempted sexual battery by an authority figure,a Class D felony; attempted sexual battery,a Class A misdemeanor; and two counts of attempted assault, a Class C misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-12-101 (2010) (attempt), 39-13-101 (2006) (amended 2009, 2010) (assault), 39-13-505 (2010) (sexual battery), 39-13-527 (2010) (sexual battery by an authority figure), 39-13-529 (2010) (solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to serve ten years for solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor, five years for two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, four years for six counts of attempted solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor, three years for two counts of attempted sexual battery by an authority figure, eleven months and twenty-nine days for attempted sexual battery, and thirty days for two counts of attempted assault. The trial court imposed partially consecutive sentences yielding an effective fifteen-year sentence for these offenses. After the convictions, the Defendant pled guilty to attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, pertaining to a count of the indictment that was severed from the counts charging sexual offenses. See id., § 39-13-305 (2010) (especially aggravated kidnapping). The court imposed a twelve-year sentence consecutively to the effective fifteen-year sentence for the other convictions, for a final effective sentence of twenty-seven years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his two motions for a mistrial. We affirm the judgments of the trial court

The defendant, Robert Lee Adams, fled justice while the jury was deliberating numerous charges against him stemming from his participation in a drug-related shooting in 2007. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony; especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, a Class D felony. The defendant was sentenced in absentia to an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus twenty years. The defendant’s trial counsel filed a timely motion for new trial. In response, the State moved to dismiss the defendant’s motion on the grounds that the defendant had abandoned his right to proceed by absconding from the court’s jurisdiction. After a hearing held while the defendant was still in absentia, the trial court dismissed the defendant’s motion for a new trialpursuantto the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and allowed the defendant’s trialcounsel to withdraw soon thereafter. Weeks later, the defendant was returned to custody, filed a pro se notice of appeal, and was appointed new counsel. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred by dismissing his motion for a new trial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (3) the trial court erred by denying his trial counsel’s motion for a continuance; and (4) the trial court applied improper enhancement factors when it sentenced him for his conspiracy and aggravated robbery convictions. The State argues that we must dismiss the defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds that he was a fugitive from justice but that, nonetheless, we have jurisdiction to review his appeal now that he has been returned to custody. The absence of a motion for new trial, however, limits our appellate review to considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and his sentencing. After thorough review, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the defendant’s convictions and thatthe trial court committed no error in sentencing the defendant for conspiracy to commit kidnapping. While we conclude that the trial court may have erroneously applied one of the several enhancement factors it used when it sentenced the defendant for aggravated robbery, in light of the applicable sentencing principles, remaining enhancement factors, and the particular facts of this case, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Defendant-Appellant, Susan A. Webb, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s order denying her request for relief from the prosecutor’s denial of her application for pretrial diversion. On appeal, Webb argues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the victim to testify at the hearing challenging the prosecutor’s denial of pretrial diversion; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to “fill in the gaps” in proof after determining that the prosecutor initially abused her discretion in denying pretrial diversion; (3) the trial court erred in suggesting and allowing her to file a second application for pretrial diversion; (4) the unfavorable factors regarding the circumstances of the case and the need for deterrence did not outweigh the favorable factors as stated in her application for pretrial diversion; (5) the prosecutor considered irrelevant factors and drew “conclusions based on conjecture and speculation” in evaluating her petition for pretrial diversion; (6) the prosecutor abused her discretion in using “conclusionary, flawed logic” in denying her application for pretrial diversion, which resulted in an “arbitrary and capricious” decision; and (7) appellate review of the denial of her two applications for pretrial diversion is improper. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case is before us for the second time on appeal. In our first Opinion, Kerney v. Endres, No. E2008-01476-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2009), no appl. perm. appeal filed (“Kerney I”), we found and held that defendants’ beauty salon violated the restrictive covenants of residential use only, vacated the Trial Court’s order to the contrary, and remanded the case for a determination of whether the restrictive covenants had been waived. On remand, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the restrictive covenants of residential use only had been waived and were unenforceable. Plaintiffs appeal the finding of waiver to this Court. We find that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Court’s finding that the restrictive covenants had been waived. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s May 3, 2010 order.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Avis”) sued James Hagood d/b/a Hagood & Sons Wrecker Service (“Hagood”) and, after a trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment on October 15, 2010 awarding a judgment in favor of Avis in the amount of $7,284 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. Subsequently, Hagood filed a motion to alter or amend or for a new trial, which the Trial Court denied. Hagood appealed to this Court. Since the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees remains outstanding, we dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment.

The Petitioner, Charles Edward Cliff, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that (1) his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The defendant, Martarious Hoskins, appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Marlon McKay, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery and was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive terms of life plus six years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and contends that the trial court committed plain error by granting the State’s request to omit a portion of the pattern jury instruction on criminal responsibility. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Wesley Wright, was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued at ten thousand dollars or more but less than sixty thousand dollars, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103, -105 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range II,multiple offender to seven years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) he was denied his right to a speedy trial, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (3) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Davidson County Criminal Court denied the petitioner, Gdongalay P. Berry, post-conviction relief from his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping but granted relief from his sentence of death in the form of a new capital sentencing hearing. The petitioner appeals the partial denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the State violated the tenets of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); that neither the State nor the trial court honored his constitutional right to a speedy trial; that the State’s pursuit of inconsistent theories violated his constitutional right to due process; that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; and that the cumulative effect of the constitutional deprivations rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. The State appeals the post-conviction court’s grant of a new sentencing hearing, asserting that the error attending the petitioner’s original sentencing hearing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Shanta Jones, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of facilitation of aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; facilitation of aggravated burglary, a Class D felony; facilitation of aggravated assault, a Class D felony; and retaliation for past action, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-11-403 (2010), 39-13-402 (2010), 39-14-403 (2010), 39-13-102 (Supp. 2009) (amended 2010), 39-16-510 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to six years for facilitation of aggravated robbery, to four years each for the burglary and assault convictions, and to two years for retaliation for past action, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Chattanooga’s mayor, the subject of a recall petition, filed suit against the county election commission, seeking a declaratory judgment that the petition process was flawed and to enjoin the election commission from placing the recall issue on the November 2010 election ballot. The trial court found the election commission could not lawfully certify the recall petition due to noncompliance with applicable statutory provisions and enjoined the placement of the recall issue on the ballot. The leader of the recall effort appeals. We find that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in entering an injunction against the election commission. The judgment of the trial court is vacated and the complaint dismissed.

The Juvenile Court for Hamilton County (“the Juvenile Court”), upon a petition by the State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and following a trial, terminated the parental rights of Troy L. (“Father”) to the minor child Breanna A. L. (“the Child”) pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(3) (2010). Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. We find and hold that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 13 (g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(3), and that clear and convincing evidence existed such that the termination was in the Child’s best interest. We, therefore, affirm the Juvenile Court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child.

The defendant, Robert White, appeals his conviction of second offense driving under the influence, see T.C.A. § 55-10-401(a)(1); -403(a)(1)(A)(iv), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction in light of his acquittal on an alternative count also charging driving under the influence, see id. § 55-10-401(a)(2). Because the seemingly inconsistent verdicts in this case do not render the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication infirm or insufficient, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves the constitutionality of a statute on temporary disability benefits,T.C.A. § 50-6-238. The plaintiff employment agency refused to pay temporary disability benefits to an employee who claimed that she was disabled from an on-the-job injury. The employee filed a request for assistance with the defendant Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development pursuant to T.C.A.§ 50-6-238. A workers’compensation specialist entered an order requiring the employer to pay temporary disability benefits to the employee. The employer filed an unsuccessful administrative appeal. The employer then filed the instant petition for common law writ of certiorari alleging, inter alia, that the procedures in T.C.A. § 50-6-238 violate the employer’s right to procedural due process. The trial court agreed and held the statute to be unconstitutional on its face. The State appeals. In light of this Court’s recent decision in Tyson Foods v. TDOL, No. M2010-0227-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 4790980 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2011), we reverse the decision of the trial court.