APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Liberty Bonding Company, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of its request to return the $5000 paid as a final forfeiture on the bond for the defendant, Jose E. Bejar. The defendant violated his bond agreement in 1996, and the petitioner paid the final forfeiture in 1997. Some ten years later, the State dismissed the pending charges against the defendant. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial because: (1) there was no written final order of forfeiture entered; and (2) the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-133(c) (2006) prohibits the State from dismissing the underlying charges. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the result reached by Judge Farmer. However, because I reach the result by different reasoning, I write separately.

In 1995, a Hickman County jury convicted the Petitioner of four counts of aggravated rape and one count of false imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II multiple offender to a total effective sentence of eighty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, claiming the trial court did not have statutory authority to sentence him as a Range II multiple offender. The habeas court dismissed the petition without a hearing, finding that “[h]abeas corpus relief is not appropriate.” After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The defendant, Suzanne D. Burkhart, appeals certified questions of law from the Sevier County Circuit Court, where she pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and violation of the implied consent law. The reserved certified question challenges on constitutional grounds a Sevierville police officer’s basis for stopping her vehicle and also his authority for doing so outside the City of Sevierville. We affirm the action of the trial court.

I must respectfully dissent in this case. Unfortunately, I find that I disagree with both the majority opinion and the concurrence.

The trial court denied Father’s petition to modify custody of his three minor children, who are in the custody of their maternal grandparents. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Nicholas Allen Montieth, was found guilty of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years as a Range One offender. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to impeach the victim with testimony of a prior inconsistent statement. Following our review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Robert Lee Adams, was convicted by a Tipton County Jury of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance. As a result, he was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to a fourteen-year sentence. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions on appeal. State v. Robert Lee Adams, Jr., No. W2007-00880-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2152497 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 22, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 8, 2008). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on various grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition.  Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Petitioner brought this action in Juvenile Court to establish paternity and set co-parenting time with the child. The mother answered and, as an affirmative defense, averred that the father had signed a waiver of his parental right and cited the statutes stating that a waiver of parental rights could not be revoked. The Trial Court appointed a guardian ad litem, and the sole issue tried by the Trial Court was whether the waiver should be voided on the grounds that the father had signed the waiver under duress and undue pressure. The Trial Judge found that the father failed to carry the burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he signed the waiver of interest and notice due to fraud, duress or intentional misrepresentation. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

The plaintiff, formerly an at-will employee of Baptist Hospital, filed this action asserting that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment. She asserted twelve claims, inter alia, retaliatory discharge, age and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, violation of wage and hour laws, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The trial court summarily dismissed all of the claims. We affirm.

The defendant, Larry Darnell Pinex, appeals from his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of assault, attempted vandalism, and attempted theft. He claims that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect an offense to serve as the basis for the assault charge, that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions of assault and attempted vandalism, and that the trial court erroneously sentenced him on all convictions. The attempted vandalism conviction must be reversed, and that charge must be dismissed because insufficient evidence underlies the conviction. The assault conviction is affirmed as are the sentences for assault and attempted theft.

This is an appeal by the father requesting modification of his child support obligation due to
his incarceration. The trial court denied relief. We affirm.

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County adopted a redevelopment plan for an area of the city which included the site of a long-existing billboard. The Tennessee Department of Transportation subsequently ordered the removal of the billboard to accommodate a road-widening project. The sign’s owner filed an application for a permit to relocate the sign on another portion of its leasehold, but the city declined to approve the application because the redevelopment plan totally prohibits signs of that type. The sign company filed a petition for certiorari in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, asserting that Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 of the zoning statutes gave it the right to replace the sign. The court agreed, and ordered the city to re-evaluate the permit application in accordance with the statutory provisions for a pre-existing non-conforming use after a change of zoning. We reverse, finding that the grandfather provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 have no applicability to the restrictions contained in redevelopment plans under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-20-201 et seq.

This dispute is between an attorney and his former firm. All parties to this suit appeal the trial court’s interpretation of their operating agreement about how the fees and expenses generated by the withdrawing member’s cases should be apportioned among them. The operating agreement gave the firm discretion to value the services provided by its other members, but the trial court correctly determined that the firm’s claimed value was not reasonable. We reverse the trial court’s holding with regard to the withdrawing lawyer’s interest in a member’s share of the expenses he is obligated to pay the firm. The trial court is affirmed on the issue of sanctions and as to its refusal to make an award to nonparties.

The defendant, Antionette Horton, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to eighteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, she argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense or defense of others. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In a divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court’s division of the marital estate, its determination of her income for child support purposes, and its division of the parties’ income tax liabilities. We affirm.

The heirs of the woman who conveyed Tulip Grove to the Ladies’ Hermitage Association filed suit claiming, among other things, that due to the Association’s failure to pay the heirs as required in the deed of conveyance, the property reverted to the heirs. We affirm the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the Association holding that the Association did not fail to comply with the obligations relevant to the reversion, so no reversion was triggered.
 

Property owners sued, alleging that the Metropolitan Government was using or taking their property without their permission and without compensation. The Metropolitan Government took an easement over the property by eminent domain and the State built the Victory Memorial Bridge over part of it. The Metropolitan Government later transferred its interest in the property to the State. Much later, the Metropolitan Government built the Gay Street Connector over part of the easement and maintained exclusive control over the part of the easement not used for the bridge. The trial court found for the government. The property owners appealed. We affirm.

Employee sustained a compensable injury to his lower back. He alleged that he also sustained a mental injury as a result of chronic pain. His employer contended that the chronic pa in and any menta l conditions a rising f rom it we re the re sult of seve ra l previous injurie s and surge rie s. The tria l court awa rded bene fits for the menta l injury. The employe r contends tha t the trial court erred by doing so. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

This appeal arises out of an action to refund tangible personal property taxes. The
administrator of a decedent’s estate filed suit against the Shelby County Assessor of Property
and the Shelby County Trustee following the payment of delinquent taxes. The administrator
alleged that prior forced assessments of the decedent’s property were illegal, arbitrary, and
unduly excessive. The chancery court determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction
to hear the case. We affirm.

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. The trial court awarded workers’ compensation benefits for gradual injuries to the employee’s hands, arms, shoulders and left knee. On appeal, her employer asserts that the trial court erred by finding that she had complied with the notice statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-201(b), and also by finding that she had sustained her burden of proof on the issue of causation. We conclude that sufficient notice was given. In addition, we conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding of a causal relationship between the employee’s work and her left knee injury. We affirm the findings of causation concerning her other injuries.