APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant, Dennis Wayne Merriweather, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that his fifteen year sentence for selling controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a school renders the judgment imposed as a result of his guilty plea void because the judgment provides the sentence is to be served at 100%. Because we find the judgment is not void, we hold the habeas court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower courtis affirmed.

The petitioner, Thomas Edward Kotewa, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to second degree murder and received an agreed-upon sentence of fifteen years as a Range I, violent offender. On appeal, he contends that: he received ineffective assistance of counsel; his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily; the post-conviction court erred by failing to enter specific factual findings or legal conclusions; and Supreme Court Rule 28 was violated by both the State and the post-conviction court. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Ronnie Bradfield, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that his conviction is void or his sentence illegal, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s summary dismissal of the petition.

The petitioner, Oliver J. Higgins, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing or making adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State has responded with a motion that we affirm the summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner filed his petition well outside the statute of limitations and has not shown any reason why the limitations period should be tolled, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

he defendant, Dwight Woodlee, appeals as of right his guilty plea convictions for vandalism and civil rights intimidation, both Class D felonies, for which the trial court imposed concurrent four-year sentences to be served on probation. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his application for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Phyllis Ann Amos, entered pleas of guilty to possession of marijuana, a Class E felony; possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony; maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances are kept or sold, a Class D felony; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and felony possession of dihydrocodone, a Class D felony. In accordance with the negotiated plea agreement, Defendant accepted concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for her misdemeanor conviction, one year for her Class E felony conviction, two years for each Class D felony conviction, and ten years for her Class B felony conviction. The felony sentences are as a Range I, standard offender. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentences and ordered Defendant to serve her sentences in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has 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) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, Employee contends that the trial court erred in two ways: first, in finding that Employee’s permanent partial disability award should be capped at one and one-half times her medical impairment rating; and second, in finding that Employee is not entitled to reconsideration of a prior injury to her left shoulder. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff and the defendant had several business dealings, including loans, a marketing consultant agreement, and a lease agreement. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in general sessions court to recover monies allegedly owed under the marketing consultant agreement. The defendant failed to answer or appear. The general sessions court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed the instant lawsuit against the same defendant in circuit court.

I respectfully dissent. I concur with the analysis in the majority opinion, as far as it goes.  I am concerned, though, with the trial court’s ruling that the Petitioner’s claims against trial counsel had been previously determined. I conclude that the record reflects that the Petitioner did not receive a full and fair hearing regarding trial counsel’s representation. I believe the case should be remanded to allow such a hearing on that issue.

The petitioner, Ronald Fielding, appeals as of right the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for three counts of rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of rape for which he received an effective fifty-year sentence to be served in the custody of the Department of Correction. On appeal, he alleges that his guilty plea was involuntary and that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This case originated with a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien asserted by Plaintiff Metro Construction against commercial real property owned by Defendant/Cross Plaintiff Peabody Place Center in Memphis. It arises from improvements made by Metro Construction to a leasehold held by Defendant Sim Attractions. Sim Attractions abandoned the leasehold without compensating Metro Construction for the improvements, which included the installation of a several-ton race car simulator that remained in the abandoned leasehold. Defendant Fitraco claimed the simulator was its property under the terms of a lease agreement between Fitraco and Sim Attractions. It alternatively asserted a superior security interest. The trial court found that the simulator was personal property and determined that that the agreement between Sim Attractions and Fitraco was not a lease but an unperfected, disguised security agreement. The trial court attached the simulator to secure judgment in favor of Metro Construction. It also awarded Metro Construction discovery sanctions against Fitraco. The trial court awarded Peabody Place damages for lost rent. Fitraco appeals, asserting it had leased the simulator to Sim Attractions or, in the alternative, that it had properly perfected its security interest prior to judicial attachment by the trial court. It further asserts the damages claimed by Peabody Place were speculative. We reverse the judgment in favor of Metro Construction and affirm the judgment in favor of Peabody Place.

The defendant, Joseph May, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed a premeditated and intentional murder. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Tony Jamerson, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the petitioner argues that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to fully investigate police techniques used in obtaining the petitioner’s confession, and (2) the trial court and counsel failed to ensure proper jury instruction. The petitioner also asserts in brief that he is entitled to relief based on cumulative error. After review, the judgment of the court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

This appeal arises from the removal of a state court action to federal court. Once the federal court granted the defendants summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s federal claims, it dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. Approximately one year later, the plaintiff sought to present its state law claims in state court by filing a motion titled to be a “Motion to Reassume Jurisdiction” and refiling its entire cause of action in state court. The trial court dismissed both cases with prejudice because the statute of limitations had run. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The trial court sustained the petition to adjudicate dependency and neglect filed by the Department of Children’s Services. We affirm.

A Shelby County jury found the defendant, Junior Aldridge, guilty of one count each of first degree murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the two murder counts and imposed concurrent sentences of life in prison for the first degree murder conviction and forty years as a Range II, multiple offender for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court’s exclusion of testimony regarding statements made by the victim denied the defendant his right to present a defense. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly excluded the testimony and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Richard D. Baker, appeals the revocation of his six-year probationary sentence. He contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation before the commencement of the probationary term and by ordering incarceration. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Ontrell James, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his aggravated robbery conviction because the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly obtained or exercised control over the property of another. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves a family dispute over real property. The plaintiffs filed suit to enforce a document which purported to convey to them a co-ownership interest in certain property and to estop and enjoin the defendants from selling the property at issue. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the plaintiffs were “equitably entitled to ownership of the five acre tract they have improved.” We affirm.

This is a child support case. The child’s mother is married to a man who is not the child’s biological father. The biological father petitioned the trial court to order genetic testing to establish paternity and to set child support. The mother sought the dismissal of the biological father’s petition, asking that her husband be designated as the child’s legal father. The husband also intervened, seeking dismissal of the petition and asking to be designated as the legal father. The trial court ordered genetic testing, which showed that the petitioner was the child’s biological father. The trial court declared the petitioner to be the child’s legal father and he began to pay the mother child support. An agreed permanent parenting plan was eventually entered, but the issue of child support was reserved. The mother sought retroactive child support for the five month period between the child’s birth and the date on which the biological father began to pay child support. The trial court denied the mother’s request, without including written findings to explain the reason for deviating from the presumption under the child support guidelines that retroactive support should be awarded. The mother now appeals. We remand for the trial court to either comply with the child support guidelines or make specific findings to support deviation from the guidelines.

The defendant, Jairie Pierce, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court for Shelby County of theft of property valued over $1000, a Class D felony, and theft of property valued over $500, a Class E felony. He received respective sentences of four years and two years to be served concurrently in the Shelby County Correctional Center. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of theft of property valued over $1000 and that it was only sufficient to convict him of unauthorized use of a vehicle, a Class A misdemeanor. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Lamario Hill, of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life in prison for the defendant’s murder conviction, nine years for his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction, and four years for his aggravated assault conviction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Darrell Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to thirty years as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a career offender. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Insurance company filed suit for a declaration that the policy exclusion for intentional acts applied to an injury arising from a paintball game. The trial court ruled for the insured. We affirm.

John P. Konvalinka (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for access to public records seeking access to certain records in the possession of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority (“the Hospital” or “Erlanger”). These documents were created pursuant to the provisions of a Corporate Integrity Agreement entered into between the Hospital and the federal Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services following an investigation into allegations of illegal conduct by the Hospital. The Hospital filed a motion for protective order claiming the requested documents were confidential and protected from disclosure pursuant to: (1) the Tennessee Public Records Act; (2) the federal Freedom of Information Act; and/or (3) federal regulations implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Trial Court found that the documents were protected from disclosure by the Tennessee Public Records Act; specifically, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504(a)(2)(A). This finding rendered moot whether the documents were protected from disclosure pursuant to either or both the Freedom of Information Act or the regulations developed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Petitioner appeals. We hold that the documents at issue are not protected from disclosure by the Tennessee Public Records Act, and the judgment of the Trial Court holding otherwise is vacated. We remand this case to the Trial Court for a determination of whether the documents at issue are protected from disclosure pursuant to applicable federal law.