APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant-Appellant, Bryan Ray Phillips, entered open guilty pleas in the Bedford County Circuit Court to one count of theft of over $10,000.00, a Class C felony; one count of evading arrest with risk of death or injury, a Class D felony; and one count of evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Phillips to serve his felony sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Paul Carr Moss, Jr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. After Petitioner was convicted of the second degree murder of his wife, he appealed his conviction and sentence. State v. Moss, 13 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). On appeal, his conviction and sentence was affirmed. Id. at 389. A petition for post-conviction relief was filed by the attorney who represented Petitioner on appeal. Petitioner instructed the post-conviction court that the petition was submitted without his knowledge or consent and to ignore the petition. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Once counsel was appointed, Petitioner filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals the denial. After a review, we determine that the Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This case involves a boundary line dispute. Plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin Defendant Walker from entering property they claimed to own. However, Defendant Walker filed a counter-claim against Plaintiffs asserting, among other things, ownership by adverse possession. The trial court found that title to the disputed property had vested in Defendant Walker, and therefore, it granted summary judgment in his favor. We affirm.

In this action to establish paternity and recover back child support, plaintiff did not appear when the case was set for trial and the Trial Judge dismissed the action. Plaintiff then filed a Rule 60 motion to reinstate the case to the trial docket, which the Trial Judge denied. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Plaintiff sued defendants, seeking to enforce the restrictive covenants on defendants' property as to an outbuilding constructed on defendants' property and seeking an injunction against defendants' alleged operation of a business on their premises in violation of the restrictive covenants. The Trial Court ruled in favor of defendants, and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

On February 1, 2007, Petitioner, Robert D. Mendenhall, pled guilty in Rutherford County to thirteen counts of the unlawful sale of unregistered securities, theft over $60,000 and theft over $1,000. He agreed to a sentence of twenty years pursuant to his plea agreement. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief asserting that he had been afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was entered involuntarily and unintelligently based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner had been afforded effective assistance of counsel and had entered his plea voluntarily. Therefore, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

Appellants, Darrell Tywon Lockridge and Christopher Allen Turner, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in July of 2006 for attempted especially aggravated robbery and attempted first degree murder. After a jury trial, Appellant Lockridge was convicted of attempted second degree murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. Appellant Turner was found not guilty of attempted first degree murder but was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery. Appellant Lockridge was sentenced to an effective twenty-year sentence, and Appellant Turner received a nine-year sentence. Both Appellant Lockridge and Appellant Turner appeal their convictions and sentences. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court properly sentenced both Appellants. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Dorian Jones left his Jeep with Ron Hicks dba R and R Collision for restorative repairs in the
summer or fall of 2005. On or about November 3, 2008, Hicks sent Jones a letter stating that
the Jeep would be “auctioned unless all repair and storage fees are paid in full within fifteen
(15) days of receipt of this letter.” Jones called Hicks and, when he learned that Hicks had
not performed any repairs, insisted on return of the Jeep without any payment. Hicks
refused. Jones filed an action for replevin of the Jeep. Hicks filed a counterclaim asserting
that he was entitled to sell the vehicle for collection of his repair and storage fees. After a
bench trial, the court entered an order stating that Hicks was entitled to recover $564 without
specifying what was to happen with the vehicle. Jones filed a motion to alter or amend
simultaneously with a notice of appeal. The trial court entered an order amending its earlier
order by addition of a paragraph which provided that the vehicle would be returned to Jones
upon payment of the $564 plus accrued interest. Jones contends in this appeal that Hicks was
not entitled to any repair charges or storage fees under their informal unwritten arrangement
since Hicks performed no repairs and gave him no notice that he would be charging storage
fees. We agree with Jones and reverse the judgment in favor of Hicks.

The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petitions for habeas corpus and error coram nobis relief. Finding no error in the trial court's orders, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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.

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.

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.