APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Warren County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Lawrence E. Ralph, of violation of the seatbelt law, see T.C.A. § 55-9-603, and operating a vehicle in violation of restrictive condition #01 (driving without corrective lenses), see id. § 55-50-331. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 30 days and 11 months and 29 days, respectively, suspended to intensive probation following the service of 120 days in jail. Additionally, the trial court imposed fines totaling $1,010 and ordered the defendant to perform 40 hours of community service as a condition of his probation. The defendant appeals pro se, making various arguments concerning the propriety of his trial in circuit court and the trial court’s sentencing. Because the defendant filed his notice of appeal prior to his motion for new trial and failed to prepare an adequate record on appeal, we determine that his issues are waived and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The representative of this Estate filed a "Motion to Marshal Assets" alleging that a California resident held assets of the Estate and had refused to turn them over to the Estate. The Trial Court summarily ordered the California resident to surrender any assets held and turn them over to the Estate. Paul V. Peeples, the California resident, filed a Motion in Probate Court that the Court had no personal jurisdiction over him, along with his affidavit. His Motion was denied. He appealed to this Court and we hold that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and reverse the orders against him and dismiss him as a party to the probate estate action.

I concur in the majority opinion in this case, but write separately to emphasize that the Court’s interpretation of the term “shown” in the Agreement is limited to the facts and the proof in this case. Given the evolving importance in the real estate market of the realtor’s online presentation of property and the fact that properties are sometimes purchased by buyers who never view the property in person, with different proof, the term “shown” could be given a more expansive interpretation. However, with the proof submitted to the trial court and no contractual definition of the term “shown,” I agree with the majority’s result and reasoning.

The defendant, Darius Jones, was convicted of one count of first degree felony murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction, ten years for each of the aggravated robbery and attempted especially aggravated robbery convictions, and four years for each of the attempted aggravated robbery and the aggravated burglary convictions, for an effective sentence of life plus eighty-one years. On direct appeal, this court affirmed all of the defendant’s convictions and his life sentence for the felony murder conviction but remanded for resentencing on the remaining convictions in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). This court also ordered that the trial court revisit the issue of consecutive sentencing and place its specific findings on the record. After being resentenced to life plus fifty-four years, the defendant appealed again, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. On direct appeal of the resentencing, this court observed that the trial court failed to place its findings regarding consecutive sentencing in the record, and we remanded the matter a second time. After conducting a sentencing hearing on remand, the trial court again imposed consecutive sentences, which the defendant challenges on appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court ordering consecutive sentencing in this case.

On May 2, 2011, a show cause order was entered in this case, directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded to the show cause order, but the argument in the response does not establish good cause for maintaining this case in this court. The Order entered by the Trial Judge on November 8, 2010, demonstrates that there are issues yet to be resolved in the Trial Court before a Tenn. R. App. P. 3, appeal will lie. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the cost of the appeal is assessed to Timothy C. Russell.

This appeal involves the application of the mandatory joinder provisions in Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a)(1)(A). The defendant was charged with committing an aggravated robbery and was separately charged with initiating a false police report twelve hours later regarding his automobile that was somehow connected with the robbery. Approximately one month after he was indicted by a Shelby County grand jury for initiating a false police report, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to initiate a false police report. Thereafter, a Shelby County grand jury indicted the defendant for aggravated robbery. The defendant filed a motion in the Criminal Court for Shelby County seeking to dismiss the aggravated robbery indictment in accordance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a)(2) because the State had already prosecuted him separately on the initiation of a false police report charge. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. A divided panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Johnson, No. W2008-01593-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 4263653 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2009). We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to address the application of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a)(1)(A) to offenses arising from the same criminal episode. We have determined that the two offenses involved in this case were not part of the same criminal episode and, therefore, that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by relying on Tenn. R. Crim P. 8(a)(2) to dismiss the aggravated robbery charge.

The trial court determined that the insuror of a bar was liable under its commercial general liability policy and liquor liability policy for injuries to a bar patron. We have concluded that this occurrence is excluded under the assault and battery exclusion of the commercial general liability policy but is covered by the liquor liability policy.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe child abuse. We affirm.

A Cocke County jury convicted the Petitioner, Charles Wade McGaha, of first degree murder and aggravated assault. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which appointed counsel amended to allege the petitioner received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury. In addition, it found that the employee had a meaningful return to work, and his award of permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits was limited to one and one-half times his anatomical impairment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-241(d)(1). On appeal, the employee contends the trial court erred by finding that he had a meaningful return to work. The employer contends the trial court erred by admitting a discovery deposition of an expert into evidence over its objection based upon Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 32.01(3), and finding that the injury at issue was not concurrent with injuries which were the subject of a separate lawsuit. We affirm the judgment.

The Defendant-Appellant, Cauley Cross, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and three counts of exhibition of obscene materials to a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a child predator to concurrent terms of ten years for both aggravated sexual battery convictions. For the misdemeanor offenses, Cross was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, he claims: (1) his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) his sentences for aggravated sexual battery were excessive; and (3) his convictions for aggravated sexual battery should be merged. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial court determined that the insuror of a bar was liable under its commercial general liability policy and liquor liability policy for the death of a bar patron. We have concluded that this occurrence is excluded under the assault and battery exclusion of the commercial general liability policy but is covered by the liquor liability policy.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari alleging that the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole acted arbitrarily and illegally in denying him parole. After reviewing the record, the chancery court concluded that the Board acted lawfully, and it dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm.

The defendant entered pleas of guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to five counts of aggravated burglary, see T.C.A. § 39-14-403(a) (2006); two counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, see id. § 39-14-103, -105(3); three counts of theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than  $1,000, see id. § 39-14-103, -105(2); one count of vandalism of property valued at more than $500 but less than $10,000, see id. § 39-14-408(a); one count of vandalism of property valued at $500 or less, see id. § 39-14-408, -105(2); and tampering with evidence, see id. § 39-16-503(a)(1). The trial court imposed a total effective entence of 15 years to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Emanuel Hamilton, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for possession with the intent to deliver one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and sale of less than one-half gram of cocaine, a Class C felony, and ordering the remainder of his effective eleven-year sentence to be served in confinement. He contends that he should have been returned to probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

.Betty Saint Rogers (“Plaintiff”) sued Louisville Land Company and Joe V. Williams, III (“Defendants”) alleging claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the Tennessee statutes governing cemeteries, outrageous conduct, and breach of contract, among other things. After a non-jury trial, the Trial Court entered its final judgment awarding Plaintiff a judgment of $250.00 for breach of contract, $45,000.00 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, $250,000.00 in punitive damages, $37,306.25 in attorney’s fees, and $556.42 in discretionary costs. Defendants appeal to this Court. We find and hold that Plaintiff did not prove intentional infliction of emotional distress, and we, therefore, reverse the judgments for intentional infliction of emotional  distress and punitive damages. We also find and hold that because Plaintiff abandoned her statutory claim, she was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the statute, and we reverse the award of attorney’s fees. We further find and hold that Plaintiff did prove breach of contract, and we affirm the award of damages for breach of contract, and the remainder of the Trial Court’s final judgment.

This is an appeal from a divorce decree entered by the Circuit Court for Grundy County on March 14, 2011. Because the appellant 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.

After being injured when he jumped out of the path of a front-end loader owned by a governmental entity and operated by its employee, the plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the employee either was negligent in his operation of the equipment or had acted intentionally and that the governmental entity was liable under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff against the governmental entity and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The governmental entity sought permission to appeal, arguing first that the employee had acted outside the scope of his employment and, secondly, that he had committed an assault against the plaintiff, either of which would preclude liability under the Act. Although we hold that the employee’s conduct fell within the scope of his employment, his operation of the equipment constituted the intentional tort of assault rather than negligence. The governmental entity cannot, therefore, be held liable under the Act absent proof of its negligent supervision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed as to the governmental entity, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment against the employee.

The Petitioner, Shawn Rafael Bough, appeals from the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State of Tennessee has moved to have this court summarily affirm the dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the motion and affirm the order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 20.

A Grainger County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, John E. Lane, of the premeditated first degree murder of Joe Brooks and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for first degree murder but reverse his conviction for conspiracy.

Appellant, Darrell Anthony Jones, was charged in two separate indictments by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of criminal impersonation, and one count of driving on a suspended, revoked, or canceled driver’s license. Appellant pled guilty to one count of felony possession of cocaine and one count of felony possession of marijuana, for a total effective sentence of four years. The remaining counts were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the sentences were suspended, and Appellant was placed on four years of supervised probation. A probation violation warrant was filed. After a hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation and imposed a sentence of one year to serve, after which Appellant was to be reinstated to probation for three years. Appellant contends on appeal that the evidence did not support the finding that he violated the terms of his probation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly revoked Appellant’s probation. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Jeremy Michael Holmes, pled guilty as a career offender 1 to voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, with an agreed sentence of 6 years at 60 percent, leaving the manner of service to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying all forms of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The purchaser of historic property appeals the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission’s denial of a demolition permit based on economic hardship. The Commission’s denial was affirmed by the chancery court. We find that the Commission’s denial was not supported by material evidence and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to return the matter to the Commission for a new hearing.

Unsuccessful sheriff candidate sued to void the August 5, 2010 Lawrence County sheriff’s election based on the ineligibility of one of the five candidates. The trial court found the challenged candidate ineligible but declined to void the election. On appeal, we find the plaintiff guilty of gross laches in waiting to file suit to the prejudice of the defendants. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order.

The defendant, Jarvis Nichols, appeals the judgment of the Blount County Circuit Court, revoking his probation and imposing service of the remainder of his sentence in confinement. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering service of the balance of the sentence in confinement when less severe sanctions were available. Upon a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the decision of the trial court.