APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Sevier County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Kevin Allen Gentry, of one count of rape of a child. Following the conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting an audiotaped message recorded by the appellant, arguing that the statements on the tape were not relevant to the issues at trial, or, in the alternative, were overly prejudicial. Upon review, we conclude that there is no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Aubrey Clark Baker, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence. Because the Appellant's motion was not timely filed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff/Appellant sustained injuries after a fall through the
second-story floor of a water-damaged building. The trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Defendants/Appellees, finding that the danger was open and obvious, that
Defendants/Appellees had warned of the danger, and that Plaintiff/Appellant was at least
50% at fault for his own injuries, thus negating his negligence claim under McIntyre v.
Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn.1992). Finding no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the Appellee in a case based on the Federal
Employer’s Liability Act,45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. Appellee filed this case as the widow and
personal representative of her husband, who died as a result of injuries he sustained while
working for the Appellant. Appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not
granting it a directed verdict, in not granting its motion for new trial, in making several
evidentiary rulings during the trial, and in not granting its motions for mistrial. We affirm
the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s motions for directed verdict, finding that the
Appellee presented sufficient proof to create a question for the jury. However, finding that
the trial court erred in allowing the Appellant’s expert to be questioned on a non-testifying
expert’s deposition, and that the jury was more likely than not guided by prejudice, passion,
and bias, we reverse the trial court’s decision denying Appellant’s motion for new trial.
Further, finding material facts in dispute, we reverse in part and affirm in part the trial court’s
decision on Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Reversed in part, affirmed in part
and remanded.

The petitioner, Renwick Andre Earls, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He entered a plea of guilty to the offense of second degree murder, a Class A felony, in exchange for a sentence of forty-years to be served as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel which resulted in him entering an involuntary and unknowing guilty plea. After careful review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

I respectfully dissent. I conclude that the case should be remanded for the appointment of counsel and for continuing with the post-conviction proceeding

The Sessions Court set aside plaintiff's default judgment based on Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 60
motion. On appeal to the Circuit Court the original judgment was ordered reinstated and the
order setting aside the judgment in Sessions Court was vacated. On appeal, we affirm the
judgment of the Trial Court on the grounds that the Sessions Court Judge did not have
jurisdiction to set aside the original default judgment.

The pro se Petitioner, Jermeil Tarter, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his conviction for sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within a school zone. Upon preliminary consideration, the postconviction court found that the petition failed to state a cognizable claim and summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the post-conviction court should have appointed counsel, allowed amendment of the petition, and conducted an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition for postconviction relief.

The employee filed a workers’ compensation claim for neck and lower back injuries
sustained while setting up a conference room during a temporary job assignment. The trial
court found that both injuries were work-related, assigned a six percent impairment to the
neck and a five percent impairment to the back, and applied a multiplier of 2.5. Both the
employee and the employer filed appeals, which have been referred to the Special Workers’
Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code
Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s award of alimony, division of marital property, and
grant of divorce. Husband filed the initial complaint for divorce. Subsequently, wife filed
a counter-complaint seeking a decree of legal separation. Wife later amended her  countercomplaint to allege fraud and sought damages based on her fraud claim. Because the trial court failed to rule on the wife’s claim of fraud, no final judgment exists. Accordingly, this
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.

The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Charles Sharp, for one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, four counts of rape, one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, and one count of vandalism. An initial trial resulted in an acquittal for all charges except the especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. At the second trial, a key witness was unavailable. Over the objection of Appellant, her redacted testimony from the first trial was read to the jury and presented as evidence. The jury convicted Appellant as charged. He was sentenced to nine years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that his constitutional right of confrontation was violated by the State’s presentation of the previous testimony of this witness, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred in sentencing Appellant to nine years as a Range I, standard offender, and that the trial court erred in denying probation. After a thorough review of the record, we have determined that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and that Appellant was properly sentenced. The State’s failure to adequately prove that it had made a good faith effort to locate the missing witness’ testimony from Appellant’s first trial violated Appellant’s constitutional right to confront the witness. Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The Petitioner, Michael Bills, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for possession with the intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel (1) failed to call two witnesses to testify at trial and (2) failed to properly prepare a defense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a divorce appeal. The parties had a twenty-one-year marriage and one minor child at the time of divorce. For the majority of the parties’ marriage, the husband owned a business, and the wife was a homemaker. After a trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced, designated the wife as the child’s primary residential parent, divided the martial estate, and awarded child support, transitional alimony, and alimony in futuro. The wife appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

The Defendant-Appellant, Andrew Deon Harville, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of first degree premeditated murder and evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class E felony. He received a life sentence as a violent offender for first degree murder, and he was sentenced as a standard offender to two years for evading arrest. The trial court ordered that the two-year sentence be served consecutive to the life sentence. On appeal, Harville claims his conviction for first degree murder was not supported by sufficient evidence of premeditation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A City of Memphis employee was terminated after accessing a city-owned database to obtain
the telephone number of a police officer who had arrested her husband and calling the officer
at his home to inquire about the arrest. Both the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission
and the trial court upheld her termination, and we affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Bradley Hawks, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Crockett County to possession of less than .5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and fined $2,000. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Hawks attempted to reserve the following certified question of law: “Whether the search and arrest of the defendant was unconstitutional in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the [Tennessee] Constitution and the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” Because the certified question fails to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and therefore it is dismissed.

The Appellant-Defendant, Mitchell Garner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Garner as a violent offender to the maximum sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence because it misapplied two enhancement factors. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Willie Hall, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in jail and assessed a $500 fine. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude the 911 tape; (2) the trial court gave improper jury instructions on self-defense and flight; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect that the defendant is to serve sixty percent of his sentence.
 

The Defendant-Appellant, Sheila White Carlton, was indicted for one count of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony; one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor; and one count of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. A Gibson County Circuit Court jury subsequently acquitted Carlton of the burglary count, found her guilty of the theft count, and failed to reach a verdict on the assault count, which resulted in a mistrial on that
count. The trial court sentenced Carlton, whose prior criminal history included one conviction for vandalism, to eleven months and twenty-nine days probation after the service of sixty days in jail. On appeal, Carlton argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
 

The Bedford County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Sheila Lott, for eight counts of criminal simulation, one count of theft over $1,000, and one count of fraudulent use of credit/debit card. Appellant pled guilty to all charges as set out in the indictments. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of eighteen years and six months. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in setting the length of her sentences within the range and in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly applied enhancement and mitigating factors and that Appellant has waived her issue regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences for failure to include an argument or cite to authority in her brief. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Appellant filed a complaint alleging various causes of action against numerous defendants. The trial court dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-801, et seq. We affirm.

The Lincoln County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Robert Dale Jarvis, for a total of twenty-one counts including aggravated burglary, theft over $500, theft over $1,000, and vandalism. Appellant pled guilty to two counts of theft over $500 and five counts of theft over $1,000. As a result of the guilty plea, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years to be served as a career offender at sixty percent. At the guilty plea hearing, the parties discussed the reservation of a certified question upon which Appellant wanted to appeal. On appeal, after a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Appellant has not properly preserved the certified question of law. Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Petitioner, Rudolph Powers, of aggravated rape and robbery accomplished with a deadly weapon against the victims Vivian Brodie and Carol Boone, and the Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and twentyfive years respectively, which were to be served concurrently. A few months later, another Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Petitioner of aggravated rape against victim Kris Brewer, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty years of imprisonment. The Petitioner was ordered to serve his fifty-year sentence consecutively to his concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and twenty-five years. Following a direct appeal and several collateral appeals, which were unsuccessful, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction DNA analysis, which the post-conviction court denied. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction DNA analysis. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
 

The Petitioner, John Carroll Cook, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. He received a total effective sentence of twentyfive years to be served at one hundred percent. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The wife in this divorce action contends the trial court erred in the division of the marital property, in denying her request for alimony, and in denying her request to recover her attorney’s fees. We have determined the wife is in need of and the husband has the ability to pay alimony in futuro, in the amount of $1,250 per month, and that she is entitled to recover attorney’s fees. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court regarding alimony in futuro and remand the issue of attorney’s fees, leaving it to the discretion of the trial court to determine an amount that is  reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of this case. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.