APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Alejandro Avila-Salazar, pleaded guilty on September 6, 2006, to one count of second degree murder and one count of attempted aggravated rape. He was sentenced to serve forty years for the second degree murder conviction and twelve years for the attempted aggravated rape conviction, those sentences to be served concurrently at 100%. He later filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. A post-conviction hearing was held on March 10, 2008, after which the post-conviction court denied the Petitioner relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in holding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and that he entered his guilty plea knowingly and intelligently. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Danny Ray Lacy, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, contending that his conviction was void due to erroneous jury instructions at trial and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Wayne County Circuit summarily dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. After our review of the record, we agree and affirm the order summarily dismissing the petition.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Corey Danielle Wellman, of one count of possessing with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, one count of attempted felony possession of a weapon, and one count of introducing contraband into a penal facility. The defendant appeals his convictions, maintaining that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that he argues resulted from an illegal search. The defendant also challenges the sufficiency of evidence for all his convictions except for his introducing contraband into a penal facility conviction. We hold that the defendant has waived his suppression issue. We affirm the judgments of the trial court regarding his drug and drug paraphernalia convictions, and we reverse his attempted felony possession of a weapon conviction, and dismiss that charge.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Maurice Currie, was found guilty of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant, as a Range I, standard offender to eight years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance; (3) the sentence imposed is excessive; and (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion that he be declared indigent for appellate purposes. Upon our close review of the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The State appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of a search of the vehicle of Defendant, Jonathan Frederick Walker. The seized items led to Defendant’s indictment for possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. Because the State was unable to prosecute the case without the suppressed evidence, the trial court entered an order dismissing the charges against the Defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a trial by jury, Victor L. Powell, the petitioner, was convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication and three counts of vehicular assault. He now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Timothy Garvin Odom, was found guilty of rape of a child, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range One, standard offender, to eighteen years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement; and (3) the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Wiley Rathbone, was convicted by a jury in Cocke County Circuit Court of three counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and one count of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed sentences of five years for each aggravated assault offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the domestic assault offense, ordering all sentences to be served concurrently except for one aggravated assault sentence which is to be served consecutively and on probation, for a total effective sentence of five years incarceration followed by five years probation. In this appeal as of right, he contends (1) that the State’s comments before the jury denied him a fair trial, (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and (3) that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence both in length and manner of service. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but remand the case for reconsideration of the lengths of the sentences and imposition of consecutive sentences.

This is a post-divorce petition for contempt and to modify a parenting plan. The parties divorced when their son was about three years old. They were awarded joint custody of their son and the mother was designated as the primary residential parent. Many disputes ensued. The father filed a contempt petition against the mother, claiming that she was in contempt for failing to schedule compensatory weekend parenting time for the father after the child spent one of his weekends with the mother, and for causing the father to miss six scheduled telephone calls with their son over an eight-month period. The father asserted that this and other conduct showed that the mother intended to alienate the child from him, and on this basis filed a petition to modify the parenting plan. After a hearing, the trial court denied the father’s petitions for contempt and for modification. We affirm.

The defendant, Johnny Peterson, was convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. He received a life sentence for his first degree murder conviction and a sentence of twenty-one years for his attempted first degree murder conviction to run concurrently with his life sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This action arises from an agreement between Appellant Mark VII Transportation Co. and Appellee Responsive Trucking, Inc. Appellant filed suit seeking to recover for breach of contract based on the Carmack Amendment standard of liability adopted by the parties in their agreement and for indemnification as allowed by their agreement. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Finding material issues of fact in dispute, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The petitioner, Jerry Sandridge, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and, upon his direct appeal, this court modified one of the convictions to aggravated assault and remanded for resentencing. The resentencing was affirmed on direct appeal. On January 15, 2009, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting prosecutorial misconduct and denial of the effective assistance of counsel. Concluding that the petition was untimely, the post-conviction court dismissed it without a hearing, and this appeal resulted. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal.

The petitioner, Timothy Casterlow, pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his writ of error coram nobis as being filed outside the one-year statute of limitations. He contends due process principles should toll the running of the statute of limitations because the newly discovered evidence was not timely sent to him by his attorney. After review of this record, we conclude that due process does not require the tolling of the statute of limitations.

The petitioner, Jeffery Yates, was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a career offender to confinement for thirty years at sixty percent. Following his unsuccessful appeal of his conviction, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court determined that the petition was without merit, and we affirm the dismissal.

This post-divorce appeal challenges the “overnight paramour” provision in the parties’ parenting plan. By agreement, the parties sought to modify the parenting plan for their two teenage children, a son and a daughter. At the time, the father lived with his new wife, and the mother lived with her unmarried partner of nine years. The parties agreed that the father would be the primary residential parent of their son, and that the mother would be the primary residential parent of their daughter. The permanent parenting plan form completed by the parties included a “paramour provision,” in accordance with a local court rule mandating that parenting plans prohibit the non-spouse paramour of either parent from spending the night in the same residence as the minor child. The mother objected to the inclusion of this provision, arguing that the children’s best interest would be served by permitting them to stay in her home along with her partner. Despite finding that the children’s well-being would not be adversely impacted by the arrangement on which the parties had agreed,
the trial court refused to eliminate the provision on the basis that state law and public policy required that such a provision be included. The mother now appeals. We reverse, finding that Tennessee statutes and public policy dictate that the children’s best interest is the paramount consideration, and thus the trial court must have the discretion to alter or eliminate the paramour provision in a parenting plan if the court finds that doing so is in the children’s best interest.

Petitioner, Jose Zacarias Quinteros, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleges that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel after he pled guilty to driving without a license in Davidson County in April of 2007. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We determine that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance or that his guilty plea was entered involuntarily. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of a foundation of which she was formerly a director. She sought to reinstate a deed of trust securing a note belonging to the foundation and to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of the property that was subject to the deed of trust. The trial court found that the release of the deed of trust was improper and that the conveyance was fraudulent and, thus, reinstated the deed of trust and set aside the conveyance of the property. We affirm.

The defendant, Melvin Jerome Reed, Jr., pled guilty to possession of 300 grams or more of a Schedule I controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, a Class A felony, in exchange for a Range I sentence of twenty years, to be served consecutively to two other sentences. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant reserved three certified questions of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the legality of the traffic stop, detention, and search of his vehicle on March 16, 2007. We conclude that the questions are properly certified and that the trial court ruled correctly in denying the motion to suppress.

Jackson County- This is a summary judgment case arising from a personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiff/Appellant alleged liability on the part of Appellee delivery company arising from the negligent acts of its driver. Finding that the driver was an independent contractor, and that the exceptions to the general rule of non-liability on the part of the employer of an independent contractor do not apply in this case, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee delivery company.

The defendant, Atavis Cortez Cunningham, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and sentenced to eight years as a Range II offender. On appeal, he argues that the jury was unconstitutionally empaneled and the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The father left his salaried employment and began his own construction business, which resulted in a substantial decrease in his annual income. As a result the father reduced his child support payments to the mother, who then asked the Trial Court to find the father was voluntarily under employed and the Court should impute additional income, based upon his true earning capacity. After an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court found the father was not willfully unemployed and adjusted the child support amount in accordance with the guidelines based on his then income. The mother has appealed. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

The defendant, Robert J. Lewellen, pled guilty in two different cases to nineteen counts of burglary, thirteen counts of theft, five counts of vandalism, and one count of fraudulent use of a credit card and was sentenced to sixteen years, suspended to probation after service of twenty-four months in jail. On appeal, he argues that the trial court’s imposition of an effective sixteen-year  was excessive. After review, we remand for entry of a judgment in Count 20 of Case Number 08-310 judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The plaintiff filed this action seeking to review the business records of the defendant, asserting under oath that she is a 25 percent shareholder of the defendant corporation. The defendant moved to dismiss. The trial court found that the plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §48-26-104(a) – the corporate records statute – and ordered the defendant to comply with the request to inspect and/or copy corporate records. The trial court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees. We reverse.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jermaine Gwin, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony. He received a twenty-year sentence to be served at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, Gwin challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence, (2) the admission of a prior bad act under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), (3) the admission of a photograph of the crime scene (4) the excessiveness of his sentence, and (5) the cumulative effect of the alleged errors. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case arose from a complaint for specific performance, brought by a developer against a realtor to compel the realtor to complete the sale of a piece of real property which it had agreed to sell to the developer’s corporation. The realtor subsequently discovered that the corporation had been dissolved and moved the court to dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity to contract and lack of standing. The developer applied for and obtained reinstatement of his corporation and then moved the court to be allowed to amend his complaint to name it as an additional plaintiff. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. We granted this interlocutory appeal to review that decision. We reverse the trial court.