APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from the trial court's dismissal of the Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim. Because the Appellant failed to timely file his notice of appeal, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss.

Plaintiff landlord brought a detainer action against defendant in Sessions Court. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the Trial Court in its Judgment, awarded possession to plaintiff and awarded plaintiff a Judgment of $17,800.00 for the rent due and one-half of the 2009 ad valorem property taxes. Defendant has appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the Circuit Court.

This appeal involves a mother’s claims against her deceased adult son’s estate. The trial court denied the majority of her claims but granted her partial relief on one issue that was not disputed by the son’s estate. The mother appealed. We affirm.

The Defendant, Vincent Hunt, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of premeditated first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus forty years to be served in the custody of the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and (2) the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors in arriving at the forty-year sentence for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and in ordering the sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence of life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The plaintiff/appellant, an owner-operator truck driver, entered into a note, disclosure, and security agreement with the defendant/appellee, Union Planters Bank, for the purchase of a tractor-trailer truck. At the time of the original agreement, the bank promised to have the vehicle’s title converted to a Tennessee certificate of title. The plaintiff filed suit several years later to recover damages incurred due to the bank’s failure to timely provide a copy of said title. Prior to trial, the bank moved to compel arbitration and to strike the plaintiff’s jury demand based on contractual language found in the original agreement and a subsequent refinancing agreement. The trial court declined to compel arbitration but granted the motion to strike. At trial, the plaintiff recovered in breach of contract. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the enforcement of his pre-dispute contractual waiver of the right to trial by jury, the involuntary dismissal of his Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim, the calculation of his damages, and the denial of his claim for prejudgment interest. We affirm.

The appellant, Timothy Scott Rauhuff, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to manufacturing no less than 20 and no more than 99 marijuana plants. He received a four-year suspended sentence. Subsequently, the State brought a revocation action, alleging that the appellant violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered him to serve one year in confinement and the remainder of the sentence on intensive probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's imposition of a period of continuous confinement. 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. After review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to a period of continuous confinement. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Plaintiff subcontractor, sued contractor, who constructed a hotel for co-defendant owner of hotel for breach of contract. Construction company cross-filed against defendant hotel owner. The Trial Court, after hearing proof, entered a joint settlement judgment against both defendants on behalf of the plaintiff and based the judgment on the terms of the settlement agreement which had been entered in a prior action in a suit between the defendants. The owner of the hotel appealed. We hold the Trial Court erred in its interpretation of the settlement agreement between the defendants, and set aside the judgment against appellant and direct that the contractor is liable for all the damages awarded, based on appellants' cross-action against the contractor.

Inmate appeals the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a decision of the prison disciplinary board. Because we have determined that the trial court erred in failing to allow the inmate to amend his petition, we vacate the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

This is a divorce case ending a twenty-one year marriage. Following a three day trial, the trial court entered a parenting plan naming Appellee/Father as the primary residential parent, granting Father decision making authority, and providing Appellant/Mother with visitation. The trial court also entered judgment against Mother for retroactive child support since the parties separation and for marital debts that had been paid by the Father during the separation. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Washington County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, David A. Phillips, of reckless homicide, vehicular homicide, reckless aggravated assault, felony reckless endangerment, and misdemeanor drag racing. The trial court merged the reckless homicide conviction into the vehicular homicide conviction and sentenced the appellant to six years. The trial court sentenced the appellant to two years for the reckless aggravated assault conviction and one year for the felony reckless endangerment conviction with all the sentences to be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of six years. The trial court dismissed the misdemeanor drag racing conviction because it was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant; (3) the trial court erred by allowing two State witnesses to give improper testimony; (4) his sentence is excessive and the trial court should have ordered alternative sentencing; and (5) the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment as to the appellant's felony reckless endangerment conviction.

The Petitioner, Jocques Lyons, was charged with one count of first degree premeditated murder, one count of first degree felony murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. On June 27, 2007, he pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, accepting under the terms of his plea agreement a twenty-five year sentence for each charge, to be served concurrently as a violent offender at 100%. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on April 24, 2008. A postconviction hearing was held on March 16, 2009, following which the post-conviction court denied the petitioner relief. He now appeals that denial, contending that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because: (1) his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective in investigating the petitioner's case. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The pro se Petitioner, William Hunter Williams, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. The State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Sidney Terrell Cason, was charged with one count of first degree felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. __ 39-13-403(b), -402(b), -304(b)(1). On August 11, 2008, he pleaded guilty to one count of especially aggravated robbery and one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. _ 39-13-210(c). He was sentenced on that day as a violent offender to concurrent sentences of forty years as a Range II, multiple offender for second degree murder and fifteen years as a Range I, standard offender for especially aggravated robbery, for a total effective sentence of forty years in the Department of Correction. On September 9, 2008, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Criminal Court of Davidson County denied the motion. The Defendant now appeals, contending that this denial was error. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Flint Green, was convicted by a jury in the Sullivan County Criminal Court of possession of 26 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class B felony, and possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the trial court's refusal to grant his motion for a new trial based upon two jurors observing him "in custody" during trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Myrtle B. Lambert, appeals from her guilty-pleaded convictions of several counts of identity theft, forgery, and theft. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erroneously concluded that it was without jurisdiction to consider a pro se letter filed with the court on March 4, 2008, which, she claims, should have been treated as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Although we find the defendant's argument misplaced, we conclude that the court had jurisdiction to consider the defendant's March 4, 2008 letter as a notice that the defendant would proceed pro se until having counsel appointed and her March 25, 2008 letter as a filing challenging jurisdiction. Because the defendant, though technically represented by retained counsel, had expressed that her relationship with counsel had ended, we hold that the trial court should have considered the letter as a pro se motion for an arrest of judgment. Because the record before this court is insufficient to determine whether Sullivan County possessed territorial jurisdiction to convict the defendant, we remand to the trial court for further fact finding.

The Defendant, John Lee Shields, pled guilty to one count of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, with sentencing left to the determination of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years suspended to probation after the service of ten months incarceration in the county jail. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to split confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified by this opinion.

The Defendant, Andrew Hunter Heffel, was charged with one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Before trial, he moved to suppress certain incriminating statements he made. The trial court granted his motion to suppress. The State was granted an interlocutory appeal from the order of the trial court suppressing the Defendant's statements. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Quortez Deshawn Duncan, was convicted by a Maury County jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to nine years in the Department of Correction, to be suspended after service of one year. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient and that the Defendant's sentence is consistent with our 1989 Criminal Sentencing Reform Act and its amendments, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, James Stout, of one count of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Petitioner, a Range II offender, to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC"). The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, his second such petition, alleging that his conviction is void because: (1) his indictment was void because the grand jury foreperson issuing the indictment was appointed by a Shelby County trial judge; (2) his sentence is unconstitutional because, on the judgment of conviction, the trial judge checked both boxes indicating that his sentence should run at 35% and 100%. The habeas corpus court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals that judgment. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Anthony Cook, was convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years for his attempted murder conviction and three years for each aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the photographic lineup used by a State's witness to identify Defendant as the perpetrator of the offense. After a thorough review, we conclude as plain error that Defendant's convictions of the two counts of aggravated assault in addition to the conviction for attempted first degree premeditated murder violates double jeopardy principles. Accordingly, we merge Defendant's convictions of aggravated assault into his conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder. We affirm the trial court's judgment as to Defendant's conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder and his sentence of twenty years. We remand solely for the correction and entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with this opinion.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Anthony Cook, was convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years for his attempted murder conviction and three years for each aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the photographic lineup used by a State’s witness to identify Defendant as the perpetrator of the offense. After a thorough review, we conclude as plain error that Defendant’s convictions of the two counts of aggravated assault in addition to the conviction for attempted first degree premeditated murder violates double jeopardy principles. Accordingly, we merge Defendant’s convictions of aggravated assault into his conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder. Weaffirm the trial court’s judgment as to Defendant’s conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder and his sentence of twenty years. We remand solely for the correction and entry of an appropriate judgment  consistent with this opinion.

Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, Henry Zillon Felts, was convicted of attempted first degree murder and aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to twenty-one years in the Department of Correction. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences. See State v. Henry Zillon Felts, No. M2005-01215-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2563374 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug. 25, 2006). He subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief. The Criminal Court of Sumner County found that the Petitioner received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because: (1) trial counsel failed to fulfill his promise to the jury that the Petitioner would testify; and (2) trial counsel failed to argue attempted voluntary manslaughter as a defense. The post-conviction court thus set aside the Petitioner's convictions and granted him a new trial. In this appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred in granting the Petitioner relief. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Transportation Licensing Commission revoked Petitioner's license to operate a wrecker service. The chancery court upheld the revocation. We affirm.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initially brought suit in General Sessions Court against his former physician for defamation (libel and slander), breach of contract, and violation of the privacy provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). The General Sessions Court awarded a judgment of $25,000 to the plaintiff. The defendant timely appealed to the Circuit Court and filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff then amended his claims to include an alleged violation of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 and medical malpractice. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the defendant physician, reversing the Sessions Court judgment and holding that (1) the defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Department of Education forms completed by the defendant physician on behalf of the plaintiff did not constitute a contract; (3) HIPAA and Federal Privacy Act of 1974 claims had been withdrawn by the plaintiff; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to produce expert testimony to prove a claim of medical malpractice. The plaintiff timely appealed. We affirm.

Christenberry Trucking & Farm, Inc., initiated this litigation against F&M Marketing
Services, Inc., with a complaint seeking a declaration that Christenberry had not contracted
to pay F&M a commission on loads Christenberry hauled for UPS/Dell Computer (“the
UPS/Dell account”). F&M filed an answer and counterclaim asking for a determination that
there was a contract with respect to the UPS/Dell account under which Christenberry was
obligated to pay F&M a commission of 6%. F&M’s counterclaim also asked for an
accounting and attorney’s fees. The case was tried without a jury, after which Christenberry
was allowed to amend its pleadings to allege that if there was a contract it was illegal and
unenforceable because F&M is not licensed as a broker by the Interstate Commerce
Commission (“the ICC”). The trial court found that there was a contract between
Christenberry and F&M, but that the contract was rendered illegal and unenforceable because
of F&M’s lack of a broker’s license. F&M hired new counsel who filed a notice of appeal
that did not contain the signature of its trial counsel. Christenberry filed a motion with the
trial court to strike the notice of appeal. Six days later, F&M filed an amended notice of
appeal which bore, in addition to the signature of its new appellate counsel, the signature of
its counsel of record in the trial court. F&M argues on appeal that it was not required to be
licensed and, alternatively, that the contract should not be nullified for its lack of a license,
even if one was required. Christenberry argues that the notice of appeal is ineffective. We
vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.