APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In the apt words of the trial court, this case is a "complex business divorce case." The "divorced" and now adverse entities are Tennessee Rand, Inc. ("Rand"), and Automation Industrial Group, LLC ("Automation"), formerly Tennessee Rand Automation, LLC. Rand builds automated robotic equipment such as that used in the automobile industry. Automation was formed by the principals of Rand and some skilled collaborators for the purpose of doing the electrical and computer aspects of Rand's work. The entities fell out of favor with each other when the principals in Rand _ Randy Nunley and Richard Roach_ each a 50% shareholder in Rand, began to have conflicts. Nunley ended up as the sole owner of Rand and Roach acquired Nunley's interest in Automation. Rand initiated this litigation (1) to enjoin Automation from using the name, Tennessee Rand Automation, LLC," (2) to recover the value of assets that Rand had transferred to Automation, and (3) to recover payments of rent and taxes that Rand had made on buildings occupied by Automation. Rand also named as defendants numerous principals and officers of Automation, including Roach. Automation filed a counterclaim seeking an award against Rand for some $6,000,000 in unpaid labor and expenses. In the bench trial that followed, the counterclaim accounted for 20-plus days of the 25-day trial. By the time the trial court announced its decision in a written memorandum opinion, the only parties remaining in the case were Rand and Automation, Roach having previously been dismissed by Rand with prejudice. The trial court found that the names of the entities were confusingly similar and ordered Automation to change its name. This was accomplished and is not an issue on this appeal. The trial court found that Automation was unjustly enriched by Rand's contribution of assets to Automation in the amount of $500,000. Also, the trial court found that Automation had been unjustly enriched in the amount of $162,818.80 by Rand's payment of rent and taxes on buildings used by Automation. Despite the prior dismissal of Roach as a defendant, the trial court held Roach liable to Rand for the rent and tax payments made out of Rand's account. On Automation's counterclaim, the trial court initially awarded it $2,270,759.22 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties filed a motion to alter or amend. The trial court determined that Automation was guilty of fraud in the pursuit of its counterclaim and set aside that part of the judgment with the result that Automation recovered nothing on its counterclaim. Automation and Roach have appealed raising issues as to the counterclaim, the unjust enrichment award against Automation based upon the assets it received from Rand, and the unjust enrichment award against Automation and Roach based on the rent and tax payments. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Raymond Ross, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief wherein he challenged his 2008 Henderson County Circuit Court convictions of reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, carjacking, and theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000. In this appeal, he claims that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences based "on factors considered by the trial court which were not found by a jury." Because the interests of justice do not excuse the untimely filing of the notice of appeal in this case, the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant, Robert Cooper, pled guilty to one count of possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell and one count of possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a condition of his pleas, the appellant reserved the following certified question of law: Whether the stop of the [appellant] for a minor "cite and release" traffic violation which provided for a fine only, the detention of the [appellant], the placement of the [appellant] in the secured area of the officer's patrol car, the use of a drug dog "run" around the [appellant's] vehicle, and the subsequent search of the [appellant's] vehicle violated the rights of the [appellant] under the federal and state constitutions and, therefore, all evidence resulting from the seizure and search should be suppressed. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Christopher Jarrod Alexander, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of robbery. As a result, the trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range II, multiple offender, to a sentence of ten years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. The timely filing of the notice of appeal was waived. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of robbery; (2) whether Appellant's sentence is excessive; and (3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant an alternative sentence. After a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence supports the conviction and that the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant, Rodney E. Howard, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for first degree murder. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. Appellant seeks resolution of the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of first degree murder; and (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to admit the transcript of the preliminary hearing testimony of a defense witness. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of first degree murder. Additionally, we determine Appellant waived the issue regarding the admission of the transcript for failure to move for the introduction of the transcript under the rule of completeness. Moreover, any error with respect tot he transcript was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Robert M. Linder, filed a motion in the Blount County Circuit Court seeking a reduction in his sentence. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellant filed an appeal contesting the trial court's ruling. In response, the State filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's ruling pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the motion was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant, Frank Edward Nixon, Jr., was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder. Pursuant to Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 1997); he pled guilty to attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony, in exchange for a negotiated, out-of-range sentence of eight years as a Range I, standard offender,. The trial court held a sentencing hearing to determine the manner of service of the sentence. After the hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing, finding that confinement was necessary: (1) to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense; (2) to protect society from Appellant's conduct; and (3) because measures less restrictive than confinement had been unsuccessfully applied to Appellant. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court improperly denied alternative sentencing. After a thorough review, we determine that the trial court properly denied alternative sentencing. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect that Appellant pled guilty to attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony.

The Defendant, Donald Eugene O'Neal, Jr., was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years' confinement for attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; to four years' confinement for reckless homicide, a Class D felony; and to three years' confinement for delivery of a schedule II drug, a Class C felony; all to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of nineteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the sentences are excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. An employee who sustained a compensable injury to his left knee in 2006 filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking to recover benefits for an additional injury to his right knee allegedly caused by over-reliance on his right leg as a result of the earlier injury to his left knee. The employer denied liability and sought to introduce at trial a Medical Impairment Registry (“MIR”) report prepared in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(d)(5) (Supp. 2009). The trial court sustained the employee’s objection to the introduction of the MIR report. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the 2006 injury to the employee’s left knee was compensable and awarded the employee 27% permanent partial impairment to each leg. On this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the MIR report, by finding that the injury to the employee’s right knee was a new, compensable injury, and by basing its award on the impairment rating of the employee’s physician. We affirm the judgment.

Wife argues on appeal that the trial court erred by awarding her a little more than half the parties' assets and alimony of $3,000 per month for 7 years while the physician Husband's earning capacity is considerably more than Wife's. During the parties' almost forty (40) year marriage, Wife reared 7 children and focused primarily on the family finances and not her individual finances. We agree with Wife and award her an additional $300,000 in marital assets. The matter is remanded to the trial court to determine reallocation of assets in accordance with this opinion.

Uninsured motorist carrier voluntarily tendered the limits of its liability coverage into the probate proceeding administering the decedent's estate and not in the wrongful death tort action. The trial court dismissed the carrier from this wrongful death tort action since it had tendered its limits of liability. We find the dismissal was in error since any voluntary tender of insurance proceeds for wrongful death should be made into the wrongful death tort case, and tendering the limits elsewhere is not grounds for dismissal.

The trial court transferred primary residential placement of an eight year old girl from her mother to her father, finding that the mother's post-divorce conduct, including evidence of drug use and sexual indiscretions, amounted to a material change of circumstances, and that it was in the child's best interest for the father to become her primary residential parent. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings, we affirm.

Petitioner, Antonio L. Fuller, appeals the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel's assistance was ineffective because he failed to (1) object to the trial court's instruction to the jury concerning the lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping; (2) object to the trial court's consideration of Petitioner's prior convictions in determining his sentencing range and the length of his sentence; and (3) failed to raise these issues in the motion for new trial. Petitioner contends that appellate counsel's assistance was ineffective because he failed to raise these issues on appeal. Petitioner also contends that the length of his sentence violates the principles set forth in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and asks this Court to grant him a new sentencing hearing. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Christopher Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to grant a severance. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

David A. Lufkin, Sr. ("Lufkin") sued attorney Christopher W. Conner ("Conner") for legal malpractice in January of 2009. Conner filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Lufkin knew or reasonably should have known of the existence of the facts forming this cause of action by September of 2007, and that Lufkin's complaint filed in January of 2009 was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Lufkin appeals to this Court. We affirm.

The defendant, Orlando Daniel Garcia, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of facilitation of first degree murder, a Class A felony, and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with intent to deliver, a Class E felony, and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of nineteen years and eighteen months for the respective convictions. On appeal, the defendant has raised three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for facilitation of first degree murder; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting portions of a video tape of the crime into evidence; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the defendant purchased and wore a shirt with a Superman logo shortly after the incident. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgments of convictions.

The divorcing parents of two minor children entered into a parenting plan that named the mother as the primary residential parent of the children, but divided parenting time equally between the parties. Less than a year after their divorce became final, the mother moved from Murfreesboro to Franklin, and the parents filed competing petitions to modify the parenting plan. The trial court conducted two hearings and ultimately adopted a new parenting plan which provided that the mother would remain the primary residential parent and that the father would exercise only standard visitation. The father appealed. We affirm the trial court.

Darlene Manis Brown, a Tennessee resident, filed a petition in the trial court seeking a protective order against her former boyfriend, Allan Craig Vaughn, a resident of the state of Georgia. Based upon her petition, the trial court issued an ex parte order of protection. Later, following an evidentiary hearing, the protective order was extended for one year. Vaughn appeals. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order of protection and claims the trial court lacked jurisdiction of this dispute. We affirm.