APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Stephanie Denise Phillips, appeals as of right from the Cocke County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues that errors in her trial denied her due process of law. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a grandparent visitation case. Following the death of her daughter (the minor child’s mother), the Appellant grandmother petitioned the trial court for visitation rights with her granddaughter pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-306. The trial court denied visitation based upon its finding that Appellant had not carried her burden to demonstrate a danger of substantial harm to the child. No appeal was taken from this order. Subsequently, the Legislature amended Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-306 to create a rebuttable presumption of substantial harm based upon the cessation of the relationship between the child and grandparent. After the law was changed, Appellant filed a second petition for visitation with her granddaughter, citing the amended statute as grounds for re-visiting the issue of visitation. The trial court granted Appellee father’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion to dismiss the second petition on the ground of res judicata. We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata may apply even though there has been an intervening change in the substantive law. However, because the prior order, upon which the trial court based its res judicata finding, is not in the appellate record, this Court cannot review the question of whether the motion to dismiss was properly granted. Affirmed.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee injured her lower back at work in May 2006. She received medical treatment for a short period of time and was then released by her doctor. In July 2007, she consulted a neurosurgeon for continuing lower back pain. Around the same time, she accepted a voluntary layoff from her employer, then retired. She later had two surgeries on her lower back: a discectomy in October 2007, and a fusion in April 2008. She filed this action, alleging that the surgeries and resulting disability were caused by her employment. Her employer denied the claim. The trial court found that the October 2007 surgery was caused by her May 2006 injury, but the April 2008 surgery was not. It further found that her award of permanent disability benefits was “capped” at one and one-half times her anatomical impairment due to her voluntary retirement. Her employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding her claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and by using an incorrect impairment rating as the basis of its award. Employee contends that the trial court erred by failing to find that she was permanently and totally disabled. We affirm.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Matthew Perry, of first degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied a pretrial motion to suppress his admissions to police; (2) improperly allowed certain photographs of the victim into evidence at trial; and (3) allowed irrelevant testimony. Finally, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The plaintiffs, Bobby Murray and Loretta Murray (“the Murrays”), asserted a complaint against the defendants, Dennis Miracle and Robert Daniel Smith, for denying them access to a road and interfering with their use and enjoyment of their property. After several hearings, the trial court concluded that the Murrays were not following the court’s orders and dismissed their claims against both Mr. Miracle and Mr. Smith without prejudice. The Murrays appeal. We reverse.

Father filed a petition to modify the juvenile court’s order naming Mother primary residential parent and establishing a visitation schedule. The trial court modified the visitation schedule, but did not establish visitation as requested by Father. Father appeals. We affirm.

This is a will contest case in which the plaintiffs attempt to invalidate the will of Lucille C. Luttrell due to her supposed lack of testamentary capacity. The executor of Ms.Luttrell’s estate filed two motions for summary judgment. The first one was denied; the second one was granted. The court ultimately held that the affidavits of medical doctors who evaluated the testator’s mental faculties approximately six months before she signed her will do not create a genuine issue of fact regarding her testamentary capacity at the time she signed the will. The plaintiffs appeal. We vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Richard E. Brown, Jr., was convicted of one count of driving on a revoked license. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-504. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court improperly found him guilty of driving on a revoked license when the indictment charged him with driving on a suspended license; (2) that he could not be convicted of driving on a revoked license because the Department of Safety never revoked his license; and (3) that he did not effectively waive his right to a jury trial. Following our review, we conclude that the Defendant’s driver’s license had not been revoked, as the term is defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-50-102, prior to the alleged criminal act. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the Defendant’s conviction for driving on a revoked license.

A Davidson Countyjuryconvicted the Defendant,Tavares Duone Braden,for the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, promotion of prostitution, possession of marijuana, and evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal; (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (4) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities,we conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions and that the trial court properly sentenced him. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Kynaston Scott, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis 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 employee suffered an episode of serious breathing difficulty after work while at home. He was transported by ambulance to a hospital where an emergency tracheotomy was performed to allow him to breathe. He alleged that this episode was caused by exposure to airborne contaminants in his workplace. His employer denied the claim. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury and awarded permanent total disability benefits. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that employee had a compensable injury, and by finding him to be permanently and totally disabled. We affirm the judgment.

The Petitioner, Daniel Deeter, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State’s motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This case involves a claim for workers’ compensation benefits by the dependent spouse of a deceased employee. The decedent was exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment and contracted asbestosis as a result. His claim for benefits was settled in 1991. He died in December 2007, and his widow filed this action seeking death benefits under the workers’ compensation law. The trial court awarded benefits, and the employer has appealed, contending that the widow’s claim was barred by the terms of the 1991 settlement. The widow contends that the trial court incorrectly set the rate at which benefits are to be paid. We affirm the judgment.

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 petitioner, Daniel Wade Wilson, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery and resulting effective sentence of life in confinement. On appeal, he contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his confession to police was coerced and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argues that the post-conviction court erred by determining that the one-year statute of limitations for filing the post-conviction petition was tolled and, therefore, that the petition is time-barred. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the State that the statute of limitations was not tolled in this case because trial counsel did not mislead the petitioner regarding the status of his appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Petitioners filed a Petition to Adopt the minor child, Don Juan J.H., and the Department of Children's Services then filed a Waiver of Guardianship stating that DCS approved of adoption by the petitioners. The Trial Court granted petitioners partial guardianship of the child before trial, and the appellants filed a Petition to Intervene in the adoption proceeding which the Trial Court granted. Upon trial of the case, the Trial Court dismissed appellants' intervening petition and granted the adoption. Appellants appealed, arguing that the Trial Court refused to conduct a comparative fitness analysis between petitioners and appellants to determine the best interests of the child. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court because appellants were required to contest the guardianship before they would have been eligible to petition for adoption of the child.

The Petitioner, Elmer Harris, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, attempted aggravated robbery, and aggravated robbery. The Petitioner received an effective sentence of twenty-nine years in confinement. In this appeal, he argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. He claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate witnesses, failing to question discrepancies in the witnesses’ statements, and failing to provide complete discovery until after trial. He further claims appellate counsel was ineffective because the Petitioner was not notified that his direct appeal had been denied until after the deadline to file a Rule 11 appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court had expired. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court with respect to trial counsel. In regard to appellate counsel, we conclude that the Petitioner is entitled to petition the Tennessee Supreme Court for further review pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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 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.

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.