APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case arises from a car accident in which Appellant was injured when her vehicle was struck by Appellee’s vehicle. Following a jury trial, the jury awarded Appellant damages, including $100,000 for Appellant’s loss of earning capacity claims. Acting as the thirteenth juror, and based upon its finding that Appellant had failed to meet her burden to show loss of earning capacity, the trial court suggested remittitur of the entire $100,000 loss of earning capacity award. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees and from the trial court’s grant of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) motion for involuntary dismissal in favor of Appellees. The trial court granted both motions upon its finding that Appellant had committed fraud upon the court in filing his complaint under an assumed name. Specifically, the court granted the motion for summary judgment finding that the statute of limitations had expired because the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint, which the court determined was a nullity ab initio. The Rule 41.02 motion was granted based upon the court’s finding that the Appellant had perpetrated a fraud upon the court in filing the complaint under an assumed name. Concluding that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Appellant committed fraud and, specifically, as to whether Appellant’s alleged mental incapacity negates a finding of fraud, we reverse both the order on the motion for summary judgment and the order granting the Rule 41.02 motion. We remand for further hearing on the issues of fraud and mental incapacity. Reversed and remanded.

The employee alleged that he sustained a lower back injury as a result of his job. His employer denied the claim based upon findings by its work site medical staff. An evaluating physician opined that the employee’s job had caused an aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment, but we decline the employee’s request to find the appeal to be frivolous.

The defendant, Elton Crawford, entered an Alford guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court to the attempted rape of his daughter and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the county workhouse. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Jay Bean, filed a “Motion to Furlough Defendant” from his sentence of incarceration in order for him to be admitted to a drug treatment program. The trial court denied the motion and Defendant filed a notice of appeal. Among other assertions, the State argues that the appeal should be dismissed because Defendant’s chosen avenue to seek review of the trial court’s order, Tennessee Rule of Appellant Procedure 3(b), does not permit an appeal as of right in this case. We agree with the State and dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Jeffrey Gaylon Douglas, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of rape, a Class B felony, and sexual battery, a Class E felony, and sentenced to concurrent terms of ten and two years, respectively. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Antonio Bonds, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a tolling of the post-conviction statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs. Because the facts of this case do not warrant a tolling of the statute of limitations, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Terry Robinson, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction as a Range II offender. On appeal, he argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its rebuttal closing argument, and he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant-Appellant, Charles Phillip Maxwell, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a six-month sentence, with Maxwell to serve forty-eight hours in jail prior to serving the remainder of his sentence on probation. In Maxwell’s appeal, he argues that the trial court erred: (1) in failing to appoint counsel to represent him at trial; and (2) in orally denying his interlocutory appeal for the appointment of competent counsel. The State has conceded that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to appoint counsel for Maxwell prior to trial. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for a new trial following the appointment of counsel.

The defendant, Wanda Elaine Brock, appeals her Sullivan County jury convictions of two counts of aggravated child abuse of a child less than eight years of age and two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child less than eight years of age, Class A felonies. At sentencing, the trial court merged the convictions into one count of aggravated child abuse and imposed a Range I sentence of 20 years to be served at 100 percent by operation of law. See T.C.A. § 40350501(i)(1), (2)(k). On appeal, the defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, (2) the trial court’s exclusion of extrinsic evidence concerning an inconsistent statement made by the victim, (3) the length of the sentence imposed, and (4) the trial court’s denial of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s convictions of aggravated child neglect. In consequence, with respect to counts three and four, the judgments of conviction are reversed, the verdicts are vacated, and the charges are dismissed. We further conclude, that the trial court erred by excluding extrinsic evidence of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of conviction in counts one and two and remand those counts for a new trial. Concerning the trial court’s denial of coram nobis relief, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition for a writ of error coram nobis and affirm the trial court’s order with respect to the coram nobis petition. In summary, the judgments of the trial court in counts three and four are reversed, and the charges are dismissed; the judgments of the trial court in counts one and two are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on those counts; and the order of the trial court denying coram nobis relief is affirmed.

This post divorce appeal arises from the lack of symmetry between the parties’ 1995 Final Divorce Decree and a 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Order that was not entered into contemporaneously with the Divorce Decree. The ex-husband, a General Motors retiree, contends the trial court erred in finding that his ex-wife was entitled to the marital portion of his early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her issue, the ex-wife contends the trial court erred in failing to grant her survivorship rights in the ex-husband’s retirement benefits. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

The petitioner, Young Bok Song, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner alleges that he was denied the opportunity to contact the Korean Consulate General in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Treaty; therefore, he asserts that his judgments of conviction for seven counts of rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual battery are void. We conclude that the petition fails to state a cognizable claim, and, therefore, the petition is a proper subject for summary dismissal. The judgment from the trial court is affirmed.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court found the Department of Children’s Services proved the grounds of abandonment and substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan and that the termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Father appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby 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.

The Petitioner, Maria Maclin, appeals from the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. The State filed a motion requesting this court to affirm the post-conviction court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review, we grant the State’s motion and 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. Ricky D. Garrett (“Employee”) was injured when he fell from the roof of a barn during the course and scope of his employment as a handyman for William David Brown (“Employer”), a farmer who carried worker’s compensation insurance. Subsequently, Employee filed a complaint for worker’s compensation benefits against Employer and Employer’s insurance carrier. Employee also named the Second Injury Fund (“the Fund”) as a defendant and alleged that the injury he sustained in the fall in combination with his pre-existing disabilities rendered him totally disabled. The trial court agreed that Employee was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the injury sustained in the fall combined with the pre-existing disabilities and awarded Employee full benefits with 40% liability for the award assigned to Employer and 60% assigned to the Fund. The Fund appealed, asserting, 1) that Employer does not meet the definition of “employer” for purposes of the Second Injury Fund statute; 2) that the proof is insufficient to show that Employer had knowledge of Employee’s pre-existing disabilities; and 3) that the judgment awarded Employee was incorrectly apportioned between the Fund and the Employer. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted the defendant, Kenneth Clay, of two counts of facilitation of the sale of less than .5 gram of cocaine, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant, as a career offender, to concurrent twelve-year sentences for each count. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of facilitation of the sale of a Schedule II narcotic less than .5 gram; (2) the court erred by admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions for the sale of Schedule II narcotics; and (3) the statutes under which the court sentenced him are unconstitutional as applied to him. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, LaKeith Humphrey, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; the trial court erred in granting a special jury instruction; the trial court abused its discretion by allowing some testimony and limiting other testimony; the trial court erred in admitting the murder weapon into evidence; and the cumulative effect of these errors suffices to justify a new trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

Plaintiff in shareholder derivative action appeals the dismissal of his suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and other misconduct, including insider trading, by current and former officers and directors of corporation. Plaintiff filed suit without first making demand on the board of directors of the corporation that the directors initiate the lawsuit. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege with requisite particularity that such demand would have been futile. We affirm the dismissal of the action.

This appeal involves a home construction dispute between an LLC contractor and the homeowners. The contractor entered into a written contract with the homeowners for the construction of a 6000 square foot home. Upon the relationship between the parties becoming strained, the homeowners claim the contractor told them to find another builder. The contractor contends it was fired from the project. The instant action was commenced by the contractor to enforce a lien. The trial court found in favor of the contractor. The homeowners appeal. We affirm.

This case arises from the grant of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motion to dismiss, whereby the trial court dismissed one of the party-defendants from this lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, the trial court determined that: (1) the Appellants had failed to serve process on the Appellee; (2) that neither the statute of limitations nor the statute of repose operated to save the Appellants’ cause of action; and (3) that Appellants were not entitled to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60 relief on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand for further proceedings.

I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s decision in this case. The Majority found that the Trial Court “did not err in finding that Wise Construction, LLC was the contracting party....” I believe the evidence and Tennessee law shows that John S. Wise, III rather than Wise Construction, LLC was the contracting party, and I would so hold.

In this declaratory judgment action, the parties sought interpretation of a real estate purchase contract. The contract between the buyer and the seller provided for the assignment of all leases on the property and proration of rents to the buyer. The parties disputed whether these provisions contemplated a separate agreement between the seller and a third party. At the behest of the parties, the trial court construed both agreements and granted summary judgment to the buyer. On appeal, we raise, sua sponte, the question of whether all necessary parties were before the trial court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107(a) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19. After concluding that all necessary parties were not included in this action, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This case arose over the construction of a home for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued the construction company and a bank and several individuals. The Trial Court resolved the issues as to defendants, except Mark Rodriguez, prior to trial. The plaintiffs' case against Rodriguez was tried by the Trial Court who directed a verdict at the end of plaintiffs' proof. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court. Plaintiffs insisted that material evidence established a violation of the Consumer Protection Act by defendant, and the directed verdict should be reversed. Upon review of the evidentiary record, we conclude that the Trial Judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and we affirm the Trial Court's Judgment.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Elgene Porter aka “Twin,” was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. For these convictions, he received an effective sentence of forty-two years at 100% in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police; (2) the trial court erred in failing to immediately remove a juror once a potential conflict was identified; (3) the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentences. After our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.