APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Matthew I. Tart, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of alternative sentencing following his pleas of guilty to charges of violating the motor vehicle habitual offender law, speeding, and leaving the scene of an accident. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but we remand for the trial court to consider amendments to the judgments.

I join in the results reached by the majority. I write separately to note that the sentence imposed by the trial court does not comport with the sentencing guidelines and to further analyze a difference between Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-306 and 40-35-501.

The defendant, George Ward, appeals his resentencing following the revocation of his eight-year community corrections sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum twelve-year sentence for his Class B felony drug offense of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. Following our review, we affirm the twelve-year sentence imposed by the trial court.

The petitioner, Tommy Lee Clark, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper cross-examination and for not investigating the petitioner's mental competency. The State argues that the petitioner has waived appellate review of these issues by not including them in his petition for post-conviction relief. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This appeal involves a judgment creditor’s attempt to enforce a Mississippi default judgment in the general sessions court of Shelby County. The trial court concluded that the general sessions court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, and it set aside a conditional judgment entered by the general sessions court based on the Mississippi judgment. The judgment creditor appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves the breach of a real estate contract. The plaintiff hired the defendant  auctioneer to sell his home at auction. After the defendant corporate purchaser was the high bidder at the auction, it signed a sales contract and made a substantial down payment on the property. The down payment was retained by the auctioneer as his commission. Shortly after that, the auctioneer promised the purchaser that the purchaser’s real estate agent would be paid a commission on the sale. Later, the defendant auctioneer refused to pay the purchaser’s agent a commission and, consequently, the purchaser refused to close on the sale. The auctioneer retained the earnest money. The seller filed this lawsuit against the purchaser for failing to close on the sale, and against the auctioneer for breach of fiduciary duty. The purchaser filed a counterclaim against the seller and a cross-claim against the auctioneer for breach of contract. All of the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the seller against the purchaser, but held in favor of the auctioneer against the seller. The trial court ordered the purchaser to pay damages to the seller for its breach of the sales agreement and permitted the auctioneer to retain the earnest money. The purchaser now appeals. We affirm, rejecting the purchaser’s claim of fraudulent inducement, and concluding that the seller is entitled to damages pursuant to the plain language of the sales agreement.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate seeking review of his disciplinary conviction for assaulting a fellow inmate. TDOC did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and the certified record was filed with the trial court. Upon review of the record, the trial court denied the petition, and we affirm.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate seeking review of his disciplinary conviction for assaulting a fellow inmate. TDOC did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and the certified record was filed with the trial court. Upon review of the record, the trial court denied the petition, and we affirm.

This appeal involves a judgment creditor's attempt to enforce a Mississippi default judgment in the general sessions court of Shelby County. The trial court concluded that the general sessions court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, and it set aside a conditional judgment entered by the general sessions court based on the Mississippi judgment. The judgment creditor appeals. We affirm.

This is an appeal of a jury verdict. The plaintiff was hunting with his son. The defendant was also hunting in the general area, and accidentally shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for negligence, and included a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his son. The parties stipulated as to the defendant's liability, and a jury trial was held on the issue of damages. The jury instructions included instructions on the plaintiff father's mental pain and suffering and the son's emotional injury, but did not separately address the plaintiff father's emotional injury. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff father as well as an award for the son's emotional injury. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and approved the verdict. The defendant now appeals. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict on several elements of damages, and argues that the inconsistency in the jury instructions on emotional injury necessitates a new trial. We affirm in part, vacate in part, suggest remittitur as to the awards for future medical expenses and for emotional injury, and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, Bruce C. Reliford, entered guilty pleas to aggravated robbery charges, following a remand, and was convicted by a jury of felony murder. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the felony murder conviction and twelve years for each aggravated robbery conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends that: the trial court improperly allowed evidence to be introduced at trial; his statement to police was not given voluntarily; and the trial court erred in accepting his guilty pleas and in setting his sentence. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

Petitioner, Raymond Long, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, Petitioner challenges trial counsel's failure to call certain witnesses to testify at trial on his behalf. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Christopher Lee Davis, was found guilty of aggravated robbery, carjacking, attempt to commit especially aggravated kidnapping, all Class B felonies, and attempt to commit premeditated first degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twelve years for each Class B felony conviction and twenty-five years for his attempted premeditated first degree murder conviction. The trial court imposed a combination of consecutive and concurrent sentencing for an effective sentence of forty-nine years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted premeditated first degree murder; (3) the trial court erred in determining the length of his sentences; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review, we affirm Defendant's convictions and the length of his sentences. We remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing solely for the purpose of determining whether consecutive sentencing is appropriate under the Sentencing Act and State v. Allen, 259 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. 2008).

The defendant, Darryl Hubbard, pled guilty in case number 07-01581 to possession of marijuana, third offense or greater, a Class E felony, and in case number 07-03060 to possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and to possession of marijuana with intent to sell, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple offender to four (4) years for case number 07-01581, to run consecutively to 07-03060 and to a prior case. The trial court sentenced him as a multiple offender in case number 07-03060 to four (4) years for the Class E felony, concurrent with eighteen (18) years for the Class B felony, to be served consecutively to 07-01581 and the prior case. The defendant's effective sentence for 07-05181 and 07-03060 is twenty-two (22) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, consecutive to a nineteen (19) year sentence in the prior case. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences and (2) that his sentences are disproportionate to the offenses, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Larry Gene Lay, aka Big Ike, appeals as of right from the Campbell County Criminal Court's revocation of his community corrections sentences and order of incarceration. He contends that the trial court's revocation is erroneous and based upon insufficient proof. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a personal injury case. The defendant’s employee negligently backed the defendant’s vehicle into the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff had reported discomfort in her shoulders to her physician. At some point after the accident, the plaintiff reported to her physician that she had pain in her right shoulder. Ultimately, the plaintiff required shoulder replacement surgery. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. The parties stipulated to the defendant’s liability, and a bench trial was held on causation and damages. Based in part on deposition testimony of physicians, the trial court found that the accident caused the plaintiff’s injury and the ensuing surgery and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

Petitioner Timothy Clayton Thompson pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping and one count of aggravated rape. This court affirmed his conviction and Petitioner did not request supreme court review. Five years later, Petitioner filed this petition for post-conviction relief, seeking a delayed direct appeal and collaterally attacking his conviction. The post-conviction court concluded the petition was filed outside the limitations period and dismissed it without a hearing. Upon review, we conclude Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due process concerns toll the statute of limitations. We therefore reverse the post-conviction court's judgment and remand for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.

Former foster mother and her new husband filed a motion to intervene and to set aside the adoption of three children by the current foster parents. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.

In this action charging retaliatory discharge, the Trial Court granted defendant a dismissal of action based on its Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 Motion. On appeal, we vacate the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

This appeal concerns the distribution of marital property. After a bench trial, the court entered the Final Decree of Divorce and distributed the marital property. Wife subsequently filed a motion to reconsider and for attorney's fees. The trial court denied the motion in part and awarded approximately $2,087.50 in attorney's fees and litigation expenses to Wife. Wife appeals. We affirm.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that, to the extent the allegations of the complaint allege medical malpractice¹, the defendants are entitled to summary disposition of that claim. This is true because the material filed by the defendants in support of their motion clearly establishes that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the pre-filing requirements of the applicable statute as it pertains to a complaint sounding exclusively in medical malpractice. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 (Supp. 20092). I cannot concur, however, that the allegations of the complaint sound exclusively in medical malpractice.

Opal Hughes sustained injuries while in the care of defendant Hillcrest Healthcare - West, and her administrator brought this action for damages. Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint was a complaint for malpractice against defendant. Plaintiff argued that the complaint was for simple negligence, and the Trial Court held the complaint was for medical malpractice and since statutory requirements for filing a medical malpractice complaint had not been met, dismissed the case. On appeal, we affirm.

The Defendant, Conrad Earl Edwards, was convicted of rape, a Class B felony, incest, a Class C felony, and sexual battery, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to serve eight years as a Violent Offender for rape, three years as a Range I offender for incest, and one year as a Range I offender for sexual battery. On appeal, he challenges the trial court's failure to sentence him as an especially mitigated offender and the denial of alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.