APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Eddie D. Johnson, appeals from his Hamilton County bench trial conviction of driving under the influence. He challenges the legal sufficiency of the conviction evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Timothy Jerome Washington, alias Timothy Jerome Hughlett, appeals the revocation of his two community corrections sentences by the Criminal Court for Hamilton County. The defendant initially pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1,000, a Class D felony, for which he received a two-year suspended sentence in the community corrections program. While on community corrections, he pled guilty to theft of property valued over $10,000, a Class C felony, and he received a four-year suspended sentence to be served in community corrections consecutively to the two-year sentence. The trial court found that he violated the terms of both community corrections sentences, revoked the defendant’s sentences, and ordered him to serve the effective six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke the two-year sentence and that the trial court erred in revoking the sentences because the defendant did not “willfully” violate the terms of his sentence. We affirm the judgment revoking the defendant’s community corrections sentence in case 258929, vacate the judgment revoking the community corrections sentence in case 255487 because the sentence had expired, and remand the case for correction of the amended judgment in case 258929.

In response to an opinion by this Court, filed on May 26, 2009, Alan Jakes Sr. and the other defendants in this case have filed a timely Tenn. R. App. P. 39 Petition to Rehear. In our opinion, we reversed the Chancery Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ trespass claim and granted the plaintiffs judgment on that claim. The defendants note that the opinion erroneously stated that the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint at the conclusion of all the proof. In fact, the defendants raised an oral motion for involuntary dismissal of the complaint at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ proof, and the trial court granted their motion.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its complaint for failure to state a claim. We dismiss the appeal for failure to appeal a final judgment.

Plaintiffs sued the defendant, alleging breach by defendant of the contract with defendant to purchase his dental practice. Included in the agreement was a restrictive covenant not to compete. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial Court held that the $75,000.00 that was paid for the restrictive covenant should be returned to the plaintiffs under the theory of unjust enrichment, because the covenant was not enforceable. On appeal, we hold that defendant abided by the terms of the restrictive covenant for five of the seven years that the covenant covered and, as a matter of equity, the Judgment of the trial court should be reduced proportionately.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father/Appellant appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child at issue in this case. Finding that the grounds of abandonment, unwillingness to assume custody, and failure to establish paternity are not established by clear and convincing evidence in the record, we reverse in part, affirm in part and dismiss.

The Defendant-Appellant, Orlando Smith (“Smith”), appeals the revocation of his probation and community corrections sentences by the Madison County Circuit Court. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking both of his alternative sentences. Following our review, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the orders of the trial court are affirmed.

At the heart of this case is the operation of the checks and balances that influence and control a municipality’s exercise of its power to annex adjoining property. The controversy involves a duly enacted annexation ordinance that was substantially altered in a negotiated settlement of litigation between some of the affected property owners and the attorney representing the municipality. Other affected property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Shelby County seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the effectively amended annexation ordinance that had not been ratified by the municipality’s legislative body. The trial court, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court have dismissed the complaint because it was not filed within the thirty-day period within which a quo warranto action challenging the reasonableness of the annexation must be filed. I respectfully dissent. The aggrieved property owners are entitled to their day in court. They are not challenging the reasonableness of the original annexation ordinance. To the contrary, they are challenging the legality of the negotiated settlement that effectively amended the original annexation ordinance without the approval of the Memphis City Council.

A graduate student at Vanderbilt sued after the university terminated her graduate studies. She claimed that Vanderbilt breached its contract with her. The trial court granted summary judgment to Vanderbilt. We affirm.

The Plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory judgment seeking to set aside a consent judgment entered in a lawsuit between property owners in an area of a proposed annexation and the City of Memphis. The earlier lawsuit, which the Plaintiffs failed to timely join, was a quo warranto challenge to an ordinance purporting to annex certain territory contiguous to the boundaries of the City. The consent judgment provided for the annexation of the territory described within the ordinance in two stages, with a portion of the area having an effective annexation date in 2006 and the remainder having an effective date in 2013. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted permission to appeal in order to determine the propriety of the challenge to the consent decree approving of the two-step annexation. We hold that (1) the Plaintiffs are not authorized to file a declaratory judgment action challenging the consent judgment as violative of the terms of the annexation ordinance; and (2) the consent judgment did not create an unconstitutional taxing structure. The judgment of dismissal is, therefore, affirmed.

The Charter of the City of Memphis provided for automatic promotion of police officers to the rank of captain after thirty years of service. In 2005, the rank of thirty-year captain was abolished, except for pension purposes. Plaintiffs, police officers with the City of Memphis, filed suit stating that they had been denied promotions to which they were entitled under the Charter, and asking the court to require that such promotions be given. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim, finding that the suit was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Willie Douglas Johnson, of attempted second degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon. After merging the aggravated assault convictions into the conviction of attempted second degree murder and the weapon possession charges into a single conviction, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 25 years for attempted second degree murder and six years for unlawful possession of a weapon. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by ruling that the State would be permitted to impeach his testimony through the use of prior felony convictions and that the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence on the basis that he showed no hesitation in committing the crimes when the risk to human life was high. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Employee had a heart attack in 1996. He and Employer entered into a court-approved settlement of the claim, requiring Employer to provide future medical treatment for the injury. In 2000, Employee experienced additional coronary problems, which required bypass surgery. The trial court denied his petition to require Employer to pay for that medical care. We affirm the judgment.1

The defendant, Sam Avery Wilhoite, was indicted on ten counts of forgery involving five forged checks. A Bedford County Circuit Court jury convicted him of eight counts of forgery and lesserincluded charges on two of the counts. The trial court merged five of the counts, including the lesser-included convictions, with the five other counts and sentenced the defendant to an effective term of eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Sellers of truck appeal award of damages and attorneys fees awarded to purchaser based on finding that sellers violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Father appeals order finding him in contempt of court and sentencing him to a total of 180 days incarceration. Finding no error, we affirm.

Effective January 1, 2005, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a tax on the possession of unauthorized substances for the purpose of generating revenues to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat drug crimes. Subsequently, Steven Waters was assessed with taxes, penalty, and interest in the total amount of $55,316.84 by the Tennessee Department of Revenue after purchasing nearly a kilogram of cocaine from a confidential informant. In a declaratory judgment suit in the Chancery Court of Loudon County, Waters challenged the constitutionality of the statute on grounds of self-incrimination, double jeopardy and due process. The chancellor declared the statute unconstitutional and set aside the assessment. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the enactment exceeded the General Assembly’s taxing power under article II, section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution. Initially, we hold that the statute imposing the tax on unauthorized substances does not violate the constitutional protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy or abridge the guarantee of procedural due process. Because, however, the tax cannot be classified as either a tax on merchants, a tax on peddlers or a tax on privileges, as authorized by our state constitution, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

The Court today invalidates the Unauthorized Substances Tax on the ground that it exceeds the General Assembly’s taxing power under Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Court reaches this conclusion despite the precedents requiring us to interpret statutes in a manner that sustains, rather than defeats, their constitutionality. Even though I concur with the Court’s conclusions that the Unauthorized Substances Tax does not run afoul of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and that it is consistent with the requirements of due process, I cannot concur with its decision that this tax cannot be imposed in a constitutional manner on persons who possess significant quantities of illegal drugs for the purpose of resale.

In this divorce dispute, Wife argues that the trial court erred in not awarding her the divorce, by characterizing her condominium as marital property, and in the division of marital assets, including funds that the court found Husband had dissipated from the marital estate. Finding that the Husband did not dissipate marital funds, we reverse. On all other issues, we affirm.

The appellant, Jecory J. Leonard, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to facilitation of second degree murder and facilitation of attempted first degree murder, Class B felonies. The plea agreement provided that the length and manner of service of the sentences would be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the

The defendant, Christopher Anderson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury on one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies. The defendant received sentences of three years for aggravated burglary and eight years for each count of aggravated robbery to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to sever his cases from the cases of his co-defendant; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count III, charging aggravated robbery; (3) whether the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred in excluding defense counsel’s inquiry on cross-examination of the co-defendant regarding bias. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by jury of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. He was
subsequently sentenced to 18 years for rape of a child and 10 years for aggravated sexual battery. His sentences were ordered to run consecutively for a total effective sentence of 28 years. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions, and (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to serve his sentences consecutively rather than concurrently. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Bryant D. Millen, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he asserts that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to interview and investigate witnesses. He further asserts that trial counsel failed to impeach the testimony of a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

This appeal arises out of a minor automobile accident. The plaintiff filed suit individually and on behalf of his son, claiming that his son suffered whiplash in the accident. The defendant admitted fault for the accident but denied that she caused any damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented testimony from a physician who opined that the son was injured in the car accident. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.