APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant-Defendant, Randall Gene Reynolds, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Lake County to flagrant nonsupport of a minor child, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to five years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $13,440. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Reynolds reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Reynolds contends the order setting child support was invalid, and therefore his failure to comply with the order cannot form the basis of prosecution. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of this case, and thus we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I concur with the Chief Justice’s conclusion that Mr. Harris is not entitled to coram nobis relief with regard to either of his newly discovered evidence claims. Her conclusion that the claim based on the evidence regarding the “Bill” letters is time-barred is correct. I cannot, however, concur in her conclusion that the claim based on the evidence regarding the alibi witness is likewise time-barred because Mr. Harris has made out a prima facie case for equitable tolling with regard to that claim. Apart from the question of the timeliness of these claims, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of coram nobis relief on both claims because of fatal substantive deficiencies in Mr. Harris’s petition for coram nobis relief.

We granted the State’s appeal to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition for writ of error coram nobis and remanding for a determination of whether due process requires tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. We conclude that the delay in seeking coram nobis relief is unreasonable as a matter of law under the circumstances of this case, and therefore due process considerations do not preclude application of the statute of limitations to bar the petition. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition.

Petitioner filed for a writ of certiorari after his bank accounts were attached for a
judgment which had been entered by the Sessions Court against him. The petition alleged that
petitioner was unaware of the judgment against him and had not been served with service of  process in the Sessions Court. The Trial Court granted the petition and considered a motion to dismiss by the respondent. The writ was dismissed and petitioner has appealed. On appeal we hold that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition and remand for further proceedings on the writ.

The Appellant, Asata D. Lowe, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jamie Lee McKinney, appeals the revocation of his probation. He pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Henry County to attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to six years supervised probation after nine months of confinement. On appeal, he claims: (1) the probation condition prohibiting marriage to someone with a minor child is unconstitutional; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by revoking McKinney’s probation because he left Henry County without his probation officer’s permission. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The City of Memphis and the Memphis City Council appeal the trial court’s writ of mandamus ordering the City to restore funding to the Memphis City Schools for the 2008-09
school year in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § § 49-2-203 and 49-3-314. We affirm.

I respectfully dissent. Based upon the factual history present in this case, I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the writ.

We granted permission to appeal in this case to address whether the trial court erred in ruling that an indigent defendant forfeited his right to counsel at trial by telling his appointed lawyer, “I know how to get rid of you,” and, at a subsequent meeting, physically assaulting his lawyer by striking the lawyer’s eyeglasses with his finger. The defendant was tried by a jury pro se and convicted of aggravated rape. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court committed reversible error in ruling that the defendant had forfeited his right to appointed counsel at trial. While the defendant’s physical attack on his lawyer was serious misconduct, it did not rise to the level of “extremely serious misconduct” sufficient to warrant an immediate forfeiture. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 548 (Tenn. 2000). Because the defendant was erroneously denied his fundamental constitutional right to counsel, we must reverse his conviction and remand this matter for appointment of new counsel and a new trial. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.

I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the judgment of the Trial Court granting summary judgment to Tennessee Protection Agency (“T.P.A.”). I, however, do not concur with the majority’s determination that the T.P.A. owed no duty to the Plaintiff other than to refrain from gross negligence or willful misconduct.

This negligence action arose from a gunshot injury suffered by the plaintiff, Mr. Greene, when he was a customer at the co-defendant’s night club in Nashville. The shooter was never identified. Mr. Greene filed suit against the night club and the agency providing security at the club, claiming that the security agency was negligent in allowing an individual into the club with a weapon.1 The defendant security agency moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant security agency, holding that the agency affirmatively negated an element of Mr. Greene’s claim by refuting his allegation that a security guard accepted a bribe and by showing that the agency did not breach any duty to Mr. Greene. The plaintiffs timely appealed. We affirm.

The defendant, Mark Alan Deakins, appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming that the State failed to establish a probation violation by substantial evidence. Because the record establishes that the defendant violated the terms of his probationary sentence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Eric Tyreese Davis, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition in which Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of trial counsel in connection with the entry of his pleas of guilty, and that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily or knowingly entered. After a thorough review we affirm
the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this action for declaratory judgment against the City of LaFollette, the City Council, and three City Councilmen, the trial court awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees, costs and discretionary costs. On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff as the “prevailing party” in the litigation and that the trial court’s award was unwarranted and erroneous. We hold that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party, and therefore, the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs on that basis.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Tallie Riley, of aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, and aggravated criminal trespass. On appeal, the defendant avers that the trial court erred in permitting the assistant district attorney general to question the defendant about inadmissible prior bad acts, see Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), and in denying his motion for mistrial. Further, the defendant alleges prosecutorial misconduct. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Mark Anthony Haynes, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of violation of the sex offender registry law, a Class E felony, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of one year, six months for each offense, for a total effective sentence of four years and six months in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After a jury trial, the Defendant, Richard Ferrell, was convicted of driving on a suspended license. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of six months, with sixty days of the sentence to be served in the county jail followed by supervised probation. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve sixty days in incarceration. Following a review of the sparse record presented on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur with the majority with one exception. The majority holds that by failing to notify Mr. Dyer of his right to convert, Hill Services was the cause of any damages resulting from the first policy not being converted. The majority goes on to say that “[t]he final element of a negligence action is damages. In a case where the duty to notify of the right to convert has been breached, damages equal the amount the insurance policy would have been converted to.” The majority reverses the decision of the trial court finding that there was no duty to notify Mr. Dyer of the right to convert, and remands for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of damages.

The Defendant, Deborah Jo Orr, was charged with one count of driving under the influence (fourth offense), one count of driving on a revoked license (first offense), one count of violating the implied consent law, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a jury trial, she was convicted as charged. In this direct appeal, she contends that the State presented evidence insufficient to convict her of driving under the influence. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a dispute between Appellant employee and Appellee employer over life insurance coverage under a group insurance policy. Employee asserts that employer was
negligent in failing to inform employee of his right of conversion under the insurance policy and also in its failure to obtain insurance coverage for him after he was rehired. In the alternative, employee argues that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply. The trial court dismissed the complaint based upon its finding that employee failed to make out a
prima facie case for negligence, and declined to apply equitable estoppel. Finding negligence by the employer in failing to notify employee of his right to convert, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of that claim and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the decision of the trial court finding that the employer was not negligent in obtaining new insurance for the employee after he was rehired and its decision not to apply equitable estoppel.

The Appellant, Rudolph Powers, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant failed to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Sevier County jury convicted the Petitioner, Michelle Tipton, of felony murder, robbery, and second-degree murder, and the trial court imposed a life sentence. On direct appeal, this Court reversed the second-degree murder conviction, merged the robbery conviction with the felony murder conviction, and affirmed the life sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Kenneth L. Peachman, along with seven co-defendants, was indicted in count one of the indictment for first degree, premeditated murder. The co-defendants’ cases are not part of this appeal. Defendant entered a plea of guilty in count one to the lesser included offense of second degree murder, with sentencing left to the discretion of the trial court. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, the State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi as to the remaining counts of the indictment. Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty before sentencing, which was denied by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant, as a Range One, standard offender, to twenty-four years, six months. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, and that the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.