APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Dana Webb, appeals the denial of her request for judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by focusing on the need for deterrence while not considering factors in favor of diversion. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant judicial diversion. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the imposition of conditions of the probationary term.

The Defendant-Appellant, Ricky Lee Hatchel, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony and originally sentenced to three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The jury also imposed a $10,000 fine, which was reduced by the trial court to $5,000. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court subsequently found that Hatchel qualified for alternate sentencing, and ordered Hatchel to complete one year of community corrections before being transferred to supervised probation. In this appeal, Hatchel claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; and (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce photographs of the victim’s injuries. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Metro public works employee was injured when a front end loader operated by a Metro fire department employee made a loud noise, causing the public works employee, fearing for his life, to fall while attempting to jump over a guardrail. The injured plaintiff filed suit against Metro and the defendant front end loader operator. Metro filed a cross-claim against the defendant as well as a counter-claim against the plaintiff seeking a subrogation of lost wages and medical payments recovered from the defendant. The trial court found that the defendant acted negligently and within the scope of his employment, and thus, it found that Metro’s immunity was removed pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Accordingly, the trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff against Metro, and itdismissed the claims against the defendant. On appeal, Metro argues that the defendant acted intentionally, rather than negligently, and that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment, such that Metro retains its immunity. We affirm.

The defendant, Willie Price, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II offender to an effective sentence of sixty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the trial court erred by ruling that the State could impeach his testimony with his prior burglary and theft convictions, consolidating his indictments for trial, admitting his statements to police, and enhancing his sentences and ordering that they be served consecutively. Having reviewed the record and found no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Thomas Hall, alleged that he sustained hearing loss due to exposure to noise in the workplace. The employer, TRW Automotive U.S., LLC,
contended that most of the hearing loss occurred after Mr. Hall began wearing hearing protection,
and was therefore not caused by his employment. The trial court awarded 75% permanent partial
disability of the hearing of both ears. TRW has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in that
it failed to apportion the award to the body as a whole, selected an incorrect injury date, declined to
view a video recording of an evidentiary deposition, and made an excessive award of benefits. We
conclude that the award should have been assigned to the body as a whole, and that the trial court
selected an incorrect injury date. The judgment is modified accordingly.1

The petitioner, Szumanski Stroud, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not properly cross-examining the victim about his identification of the petitioner. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, George Chisholm, pled guilty in the Bradley County Criminal Court to driving under the influence, eighth offense, a Class E felony, and to two counts of vehicular assault, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years for the DUI to be served consecutively to concurrent four-year sentences for the vehicular assault counts, for a total effective sentence of six years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court should have granted some form of alternative sentence in consideration of the condition of his health. Following our review, we affirm the denial of alternative sentencing, but we remand for the correction of the judgments.

The Defendant, Darryl Keith Robinson, was indicted for one count of felony murder and one count of premeditated first degree murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. He was also charged with one count of theft of property valued at greater than $10,000 but less than $60,000, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-105(4). Following a jury trial, he was found guilty as charged of theft, and convicted of one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(c). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for second degree murder and six years for theft of property, for a total effective sentence of thirty-one years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he contends that:(1) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the victim filed for orders of protection against another individual; (2) the trial court erred by allowing testimony that the Defendant had a criminal history; (3) the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding a conversation between the victim and the Defendant; (4) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him of either second degree murder or theft of property valued at greater than $10,000 but less than $60,000; and (5) the trial court erred in setting the length of the Defendant’s sentence. After our review, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for second degree murder. We vacate the twenty-five year sentence imposed for the second degree murder conviction. We modify the conviction for Class C felony theft to a conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft. We remand this case to the trial court for resentencing.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Kimberly Wheeler, sustained repetitive trauma injuries to both arms. The injuries were accepted by her employer, Whirlpool Corporation, as compensable. After having surgery on both arms, she returned to work, initially in a light-duty
status, and later to full duty. The product line on which she worked was then shut down and moved to another location. She was offered the option of accepting a voluntary layoff or moving to another product line. She chose the voluntary layoff. Under the terms of her employment contract, she continued to be an employee although she was not working. Eventually, the entire plant closed and Ms. Wheeler was terminated at that time. The trial court found that she had meaningful return to work and voluntarily left her employment. For that reason, it limited its award of permanent partial disability benefits to one and one-half times the anatomical impairment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(B). The employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by applying the one and one-half times impairment cap. We agree and modify the judgment.1

The plaintiffs/appellants, two doctors, filed suit after they were deemed to have voluntarily relinquished their medical staff privileges at Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals for failure to maintain compulsory insurance coverage. The doctors’ complaint and amended complaint alleged breach of contract, intentional interference with business relationships, common law retaliatory discharge, and violation of federal and state whistleblower statutes. In separate orders, the trial court dismissed the doctors’ whistleblower and retaliatory discharge claims. The court later granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the remaining claims. We affirm.

The Appellant was convicted in the Hickman County Circuit Court of driving under the influence. She was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, to be served on probation. She appeals, asserting she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because both her brief and the record she provided are inadequate under our rules, we affirm.

On December 16, 2008, after pleading guilty to two counts of sale of marijuana and one count of aggravated assault, the Defendant, Michael Edwards, was sentenced to four years in the Department of Correction, all but 120 days of which was ordered to be served on probation. The trial court issued probation violation warrants for the Defendant on March 13 and April 14, 2009. Following an evidentiary hearing on April 23, 2009, the Coffee County Circuit Court revoked his probation. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that his probation was revoked in error. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Cortino Harris, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, Class E felonies, and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The court merged the felony drug convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range II multiple offender to four years in the Department of Correction. The court sentenced the defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days on the misdemeanor conviction, to be served consecutively to the felony sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Wilson County- In this divorce case, the Trial Court awarded the wife the divorce, and awarded her alimony in solido. One-half of the equity in the home was awarded to the wife, and other one-half of the equity in the home was awarded to the wife as alimony in solido. The Court also awarded the wife one-half of the workers' compensation settlement proceeds obtained by the husband during the marriage. On appeal, the husband questioned the distribution of the marital property and the Trial Court's ruling that the workers' compensation award was also marital property. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

The petitioner, James Carr, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He was convicted on November 4, 1984, of aggravated rape and sentenced to life imprisonment as a Range II offender. The trial court ruled the petition should be dismissed because it did not set out any newly discovered evidence and contained no exception to the one-year statute of limitations. On appeal he argues that the dismissal was an unconstitutional denial of his right to due process. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

Supplier of building materials filed materialman’s lien on property after contractor failed to
pay for materials provided for building a house on the property. On cross motions for
summary judgment, the trial court struck down liens the supplier had filed against the subject
property and dismissed the supplier’s action; supplier appeals. Finding error, we reverse and
remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

After ten years of marriage, Katherine Dodge Gribben Warwick (“Wife”) filed a complaint
for divorce against her spouse, Edward Joseph Warwick, Sr. (“Husband”). Pursuant to the
parties’ pre-trial stipulation, the court granted Husband a divorce; incorporated the parties’
agreed permanent parenting plan; and distributed some of the parties’ personal property.
Following a bench trial, the court classified, valued, and distributed the balance of the
parties’ property. Husband appeals, challenging (1) the court’s decree as to how Wife was
to receive her equity in the marital home, (2) the classification and allocation of certain debts,
and (3) the overall property division. We affirm.

Corporacion Euanitos, S.A. (“Plaintiff”) sued Montlake Properties, Inc.; Montlake Property
Owners Association, Inc.; and Luken Properties, LLC seeking, in part, a restraining order and
a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from pumping water from a lake,
Montlake, located in Hamilton County. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding
and holding, inter alia, “[t]hat Luken Properties, LLC, has an easement right to withdraw
water from Montlake.” Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We affirm.

Appellant, Bethany Dawn Hunt, was convicted on her open guilty plea to a Marshall County Grand Jury indictment for burglary, illegal possession of a debit card, and two counts of theft of property valued at less than $500. The trial court merged the theft convictions and imposed an effective sentence of three years and three months in confinement. Appellant appeals, asserting the sentence is excessive and contrary to law. We affirm.

This appeal involves a noncompete agreement and the Trade Secrets Act. The defendant employee worked for fourteen years for the plaintiff employer. The employee executed a covenant not to compete, prohibiting the employee from soliciting the employer’s clients for one year after termination. During her employment, the employee became the contact person for a particular customer. The defendant employee was temporarily laid off. The day after the layoff, the employee and the customer entered into an arrangement under which the laid off employee performed the same work for the customer that the employer had been performing. The employee then emailed numerous documents related to the customer from her work email address to her personal email address. After that, the customer ended the business relationship with the plaintiff employer. Subsequently, the employer sued the employee for, inter alia, breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential information, and violation of Tennessee’s Trade Secrets Act. The trial court entered judgment for the employer on all counts; the damages award included over $900,000 as doubled damages under the Trade Secrets Act. The employee now appeals. We affirm, finding that the covenant not to compete was enforceable despite the lack of any territorial limitation, that the information emailed to the employee’s personal email was a trade secret, and that the evidence supports the award of damages.

The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for
damages arising from alleged malicious harassment under Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 4-
21-101 & 701 based on Plaintiff’s failure to allege malicious harassment based on race,
color, religion, ancestry or national origin. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Dexter Johnson, filed a petition in the Johnson County Criminal Court seeking habeas corpus relief from his multiple felony convictions. The petitioner argued that because the trial court failed to enumerate enhancing and mitigating factors on the record and because the judgments of conviction fail to specify whether his sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively, his convictions and sentences are therefore void. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The issue on appeal is whether a defendant, who appealed from an adverse judgment rendered against her in the general sessions court, may dismiss the appeal at any time in the circuit court and thereby dismiss the plaintiff’s additional claims asserted in an amended complaint in the circuit court. Following the defendant’s appeal to the circuit court, the plaintiff/appellee filed an amended complaint adding his wife as an additional plaintiff, asserting additional claims and seeking additional damages. On the eve of trial, the defendant filed a Notice of Dismissal of Appeal and Motion to Affirm General Sessions Judgment. The plaintiffs objected to the dismissal of their amended complaint, insisting that they had the right to proceed with their new and additional claims. The circuit court held that the party appealing from a general sessions judgment is entitled to dismiss the appeal at any time, without the consent of the adverse party, and the affirmance of the general sessions judgment. We affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Appellant Agatha Rannah Hodge was charged with fifty counts of theft and one count of burglary. She pled guilty to one count of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000 and one count of burglary. The remaining charges were dismissed. She was sentenced to four years for the theft conviction and three years for the burglary conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. The trial court ordered the Appellant to serve seven months in confinement, with the remainder to be served on probation. She subsequently pled guilty to violating the rules of her probation, and the trial court ordered her to serve her sentences in confinement. She appeals, arguing the revocation was excessive. We affirm.

In this direct appeal of a lawyer disciplinary proceeding involving eight separate complaints, we must determine whether the trial court correctly affirmed the hearing panel’s finding that attorney Michael Sneed violated numerous ethical rules and should be disbarred from the practice of law. Sneed contends that his disciplinary proceedings were procedurally unlawful because the hearing panel did not (1) conduct a prehearing conference as required by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 13.6, (2) authorize the filing of two supplemental petitions for discipline, or (3) allow him to call as witnesses disciplinary counsel or the Board of Professional Responsibility’s executive secretary. He also asserts that the evidence does not support the hearing panel’s findings of professional misconduct and that he was denied a meaningful review in the trial court because the trial court failed to properly schedule and review his appeal from the hearing panel. Finally, Sneed challenges the finding of the hearing panel and the trial court that he should be disbarred from the practice of law. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court disbarring Mr. Sneed.