APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Rokisha Lashia Alderson, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, she argues that the statute of limitations was tolled because she was misled by prison officials about her minority status. After our review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court summarily dismissing the petition and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness of the petition.

Father appeals the trial court's decision to allow Mother to relocate to California with the parties' minor child. Mother and Father lived separately in California when their only child was born. Mother moved with the minor child to Tennessee in April 2008; Father also moved to Tennessee to be near the child. A year later, Father filed a Petition to Register a Foreign Decree and Modify and Enforce Visitation in the Williamson County Juvenile Court. In June 2009, Mother notified Father she intended to return to California with their child and sought court permission to do so. When the juvenile court referee denied the relocation, Mother sought a de novo hearing before the juvenile court judge. Following a full hearing, the juvenile court judge granted Mother's request to relocate finding that Father, who did not have substantially equal parenting time, failed to carry his burden under the parental relocation statute, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-6-108(d)(1). We affirm the trial court's findings that Father did not prove that Mother's move is not for a reasonable purpose, poses a specific or serious threat of harm to the child, or is vindictive. We also affirm the trial court's decision denying Mother's request for attorney's fees and deny her request for attorney's fees on appeal.

Defendant, Duantez Cornell Jenkins, was indicted for possession, within a school zone, and with intent to sell or deliver twenty-six (26) grams or more of a substance containing cocaine. In the same indictment, Robert Lee Archibald, Jr. (Archibald), was indicted for the same offense, in addition to two other charges. All charges were the result of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress all the evidence seized which forms the basis of the charges against him. The trial court entered an order granting the motion and dismissed the charges against defendant. The State appeals. Based upon the record and briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Bedford County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Mary Cathleena Blindt, for three counts of prescription fraud, two counts of forgery, and one count each of theft, introduction of contraband into a penal facility, and failure to appear. Following guilty pleas and a sentencing hearing, the defendant received an effective sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied alternative sentencing, ordered consecutive sentencing, and imposed the maximum sentence within the range for three of the defendant's convictions. The defendant also correctly notes an error on the judgment forms. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgments in part and remand the case for correction of an error on one of the judgment forms.

The defendant, Steven Cornell Gray, appeals from his Madison County Circuit Court jury conviction of possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine. He claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, but upon our review of the case, we affirm this conviction.

The pro se petitioner, Henry Johnson, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. He was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated burglary and was sentenced to life imprisonment on August 19, 2009. On appeal, he argues that: the indictment against him was defective; the habeas corpus court erred in dismissing his petition without a hearing or appointment of counsel; and he was subject to double jeopardy as a result of the indictment. After careful review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

Leigh Ann Lawrence ("Mother") secretly tape recorded her 2 1/2-year-old daughter's telephone conversation with the child's father, Chris Lawrence ("Father"), during the course of a divorce and custody dispute. After the divorce was concluded, Father filed a complaint against Mother seeking damages for, among other things, wiretapping in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. _39-13-601 (2006). Father filed a motion for partial summary judgment which the trial court denied upon finding that "[n]o set of facts would create liability under _39-13-601 et seq. for [Mother's] interception of [Father's] communication with his daughter." The court then entered partial summary judgment in favor of Mother and certified the judgment as final. Father appeals. We affirm.

The defendant, James Walter Grooms, appeals his Hamblen County Criminal Court jury conviction of telephone harassment, a Class A misdemeanor, for which he received a sentence of 11 months and 29 days' incarceration suspended after the service of 10 days in jail. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal of two unlawful detainer actions consolidated below. New South Federal Savings Bank ("New South") filed separate detainer warrants against Brenda Pugh seeking possession of two non-adjacent properties conveyed to New South at a foreclosure sale instituted after Pugh defaulted on a loan secured by a deed of trust on the 1 properties. The general sessions court dismissed the actions. On appeal, the trial court rejected Pugh's challenge to the foreclosure. The court held in favor of New South and ordered that it be restored to possession of the properties. Pugh appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves the application of the statute of limitations in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-203(g (2)(B) (2008) to a suit for workers' compensation benefits. An employee who sustained a compensable injury and who received authorized medical treatment filed a civil action in the Chancery Court for Giles County more than one year after the last payment of medical benefits. Her employer filed a "special motion to dismiss" on the ground that the suit was time-barred. The trial court, relying on the discovery rule, denied the motion on the ground that the limitations period did not begin to run until the employee's attorney received a letter from her treating physician stating [*2] that her injury was work-related. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the employer permission to appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9 and referred the appeal to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51 for hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have determined that the statute of limitations bars the  employee's complaint and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Terry B. Johnson, appeals as of right from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction for sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine and resulting 15-year sentence. The Petitioner contends (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) he was denied a "full and fair hearing" on his petition due to the ineffective assistance of his post-conviction counsel; and (3) he was denied a "full and fair hearing" on his petition because the judge presiding over his post-conviction proceedings also presided over the original trial proceedings. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The parties, owners of a tract of land, ultimately agreed to the sale of the property by a Special Master appointed by the Court. The sale was held and the Master ultimately reported the purchase and asked that the sale be confirmed. Before the Court acted on the Master's Report, the plaintiff moved for a dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 41, which the Trial Court granted and dismissed the case. On appeal, we hold that the Trial Court was required to act on the Master's Report before entertaining any motion to dismiss the case, and reinstate the action and remand for further proceedings.

The General Sessions Court awarded the plaintiffs an $8,500 judgment for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The pro se defendant attempted to appeal the judgment to the Circuit Court, but failed to have the case docketed within 45 days after filing the notice of appeal, as is required by Davidson County Local Rule 20(b). The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of untimeliness and to enforce the order of the General Sessions Court. The defendant did not respond to the motion, nor did she appear for the motion hearing. The Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and made the judgment of the General Sessions Court the judgment of the Circuit Court. The defendant then retained counsel, who filed a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment eight months after it was rendered. The Circuit Court denied the motion. We affirm.

The petitioner, William Collier, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein he challenged his November 2008 convictions of possession of heroin with intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a school. In this appeal, the petitioner claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief via a sentence illegality. Discerning no error, we affirm the habeas corpus court's summary dismissal of the petition.

The Defendant, Andrew Douglas Rush, was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and statutory rape, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. __ 39-13-506(d)(2), -522(b)(1). In this direct appeal, he contends that: (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of either count; and (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that attempted child rape was a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. After our review, we affirm the Defendant's convictions. We remand solely for the entry of a corrected judgment form, reflecting that a conviction of rape of a child requires that the Defendant serve 100% of the sentence imposed.

The defendants, Emmett Lejuan Harvell and Bardell Nelson Joseph, were both convicted of the facilitation of tampering with evidence, a Class D felony, and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class E felony. In addition, Defendant Joseph was convicted of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, a Class E felony. On appeal, both defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions, and Defendant Joseph argues that he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

On appeal, James Kevin Roberts ("Husband") challenges the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance to allow his fifth attorney time to prepare for trial, the trial court's refusal to exclude an expert witness called by Monya Jill Rayanne Roberts ("Wife"), the division of the marital estate, the amount of child support and the award of discretionary costs to Wife. Wife challenges the trial court's denial of her request for "supplemental" attorney's fees. We affirm.

This appeal arises out of a challenge to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Upon the death of the testator, Billy Joe Walls, wills executed by him were submitted for probate in different states. Patricia Pemberton was appointed personal representative under a 2009 will admitted to probate in the trial court. Barbara Brown is the appointed personal representative under a 2007 will admitted to probate in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama. Brown initiated these proceedings by filing a complaint in the trial court 1 to contest the will submitted by Pemberton. Subsequently, Brown sought summary judgment, asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, Brown moved to transfer the case to Alabama under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The trial court dismissed Pemberton's petition on both grounds. She appeals. We affirm.

The defendant, Michelle Lee Raines, pleaded guilty to two counts of facilitation of rape of a child, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years with the manner of service left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the sentences served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant John Ayres Hewitt was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense and several other offenses stemming from a traffic stop and ensuing blood alcohol test. He was given an effective sentence of 11 months and 29 days, which was to be suspended after 150 days in custody. On appeal, Appellant contends that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. Appellant cites the videotape from the officer's dashboard camera as evidence that he did not engage in any suspicious driving and as a basis for discrediting the officer's testimony. Based upon our review, we see no error in the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to suppress. However, we have determined that there are errors in the sentences noted on the judgments in counts ten and eleven. We therefore must remand the case to the

Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, James R. Smith, was convicted of one count of rape, a Class B felony, one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and one count of attempted false imprisonment, a Class B misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. __ 39-12-107(a), -13- 302(b), -13-503(b), -13-505(c). This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. James R. Smith, No. M2005-00615-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 264468 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Jan. 31, 2006), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. May 1, 2006). The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief because his rights to due process and a fair and impartial jury were violated when five jurors ate lunch at the same table as the court clerk and two potential State witnesses. He also asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective because he (1) did not file any pretrial motions besides a request for discovery; (2) should have asked the trial court to declare a mistrial when he learned about the lunch incident; (3) failed to ask the jurors what they talked about at lunch; and (4) failed to raise the lunch incident in his direct appeal. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.

We granted this interlocutory appeal to answer a single question of first impression: whether the Tennessee Title Pledge Act, Tenn. Code Ann. __ 45-15-101 to -120 (2000), permits a private right of action on behalf of pledgors against title pledge lenders who allegedly charged excessive interest and prohibited fees. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Title Pledge Act allegations for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals reversed. We hold that the Title Pledge Act does not expressly create an individual private right of action, and plaintiffs have not carried their burden of establishing that the legislature intended to imply such a right. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

In this matter, the plaintiff appeals the decision of the Board of Review of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-7-301, as a result of his failure to establish that he had covered wages not provided by an unemployment workrelief program financed by a federal agency under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-7-207(c)(5)(G). The trial court upheld the decision of the Board of Review. We affirm.