APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin enforcement of a detainer judgment and to nullify a foreclosure on their home on the basis that defendant failed to offer the property for sale at the courthouse door, in accordance with the notice of foreclosure. The Trial Court held plaintiffs failed to prove their allegations and found the foreclosure sale was properly held. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

The defendant, Marcus Antonio Logan, was convicted by jury of one count of delivering less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), a Class C felony. Thereafter, he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant presents three issues for review: (1) whether the trial court properly overruled the defendant’s objection pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (2) whether the jury should have been instructed on the state’s failure to preserve evidence; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jerry Dale Tigner, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we conclude that the petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating either that counsel was deficient or that any alleged deficiencies in representation prejudiced the outcome of his case. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, James Alfred Goodman, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and evading arrest – endangering others, a Class D felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years and three years, respectively, to be served consecutively in confinement. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in not considering his motion to proceed in propria persona; (2) his right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the State’s failure to produce all of his property in its possession; (3) his right to confront witnesses was “abridged and violated”; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

My colleagues and the trial court determined that Detective Corcoran was without probable cause to believe that the defendant was involved in the murder of Emma Fuller, that taking the defendant into custody violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and that the defendant’s subsequent confession acknowledging his involvement in the murder should be suppressed. I agree with the relevant law cited by the majority and recognize that probable cause must have been established at the time of the defendant’s arrest. I simply disagree with the majority’s conclusion that probable cause was not established on the facts known to Detective Corcoran.

The defendant, Jose Noe Gutierrez, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and two counts of attempted aggravated rape. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress a statement he made to police after his arrest, alleging that “his initial detention at his place of employment was made without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and all his statements were therefore fruit of the poisonous tree and should be suppressed.” The trial court granted the motion and also granted the State’s request for an interlocutory appeal. On appeal, the State argues that the defendant’s arrest was supported by probable cause, or, in the alternative, that the defendant’s statement was not tainted by the illegal arrest. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Rickie Reed, appeals the dismissal of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. Because he failed to comply with the statutory requirements for seeking discretionary review of the dismissal of his motion, this court has no jurisdiction in the case.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner, Herman Parham, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to retrieve a bullet from a tree at the crime scene. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

The petitioner, Robert M. Winters, was convicted of felony murder and aggravated robbery. He received a total effective sentence of life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his convictions were void because of faulty indictments and that his counsel was ineffective. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to allege grounds upon which habeas corpus relief could be granted. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the summary dismissal. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, David W. Frazier, was convicted by a Weakley County jury of one count of driving under the influence, second offense, (“DUI 2nd”), a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, sixty days of which was to be served in the county jail. The defendant was initially indicted by a Weakley County jury for DUI 2nd and violation of the implied consent law. He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, as the preliminary hearing tape was inaudible. The State agreed, and the court dismissed the indictment. Subsequently, a second preliminary hearing was held, and the defendant was reindicted by a grand jury. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the second indictment upon grounds that he had previously been charged and indicted for the same offenses. The court denied the motion. On appeal, he raises the single issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the second indictment because the State failed to timely reindict the defendant and because the second   indictment violates double jeopardy principles. After review of the record, we find no merit to the defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment of conviction.

Plaintiff brought an action against defendant in 2005 and another action, similar in nature, against the same defendant in 2006. The actions were assigned to two separate Judges and the 2005 action was first dismissed by one Judge and subsequently the 2006 action was dismissed by the other Circuit Judge. The plaintiff has appealed the 2006 action. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees as to Appellants’ claims of civil conspiracy; violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(b)(8), (27); violation of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1986, Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-32-229(a); and common law claims of outrageous conduct and tortious interference with another’s business. We are also asked to determine whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellants’ Tennessee Trade Practices Act claims. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Oliver J. Higgins, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the State’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Members of family in whose name a cemetery was established brought suit against owners of property surrounding the cemetery seeking removal of a cloud upon their title to the cemetery, injunctive relief and damages. The trial court declared the boundaries of the original cemetery and limited those entitled to be buried therein to the family members; allowed that members of the general public were permitted to be buried in land added to the original cemetery tract; and appointed trustees to manage the cemetery as established under both conveyances. Family members appeal, contending that trial court erred in setting the cemetery boundary; in disregarding proof of cost of repairing fence which had been removed by one defendant; and in refusing to hear testimony as to the trust fund established for the maintenance of the cemetery. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee was injured on the job, when the dump truck he was driving overturned. Employer denied liability, asserting that the injuries were the direct result of willful misconduct by Employee. The trial court found in favor of Employer on that issue, and denied benefits. Employee has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a continuance based on Appellee’s failure to provide certain documents until the day before trial and the absence of a witness for Appellant. We are also asked to determine whether the trial court erred in finding that no accord and satisfaction was made when Appellee cashed a check from Appellant for a lesser amount than was owed to Appellee for increased insurance premiums. Finally, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in finding that the statute of frauds was not violated although no writing was made when Appellant’s insurance policy was re-instated. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a continuance, and affirm the trial court’s ruling that no accord and satisfaction was made. Because a statute of frauds defense was not properly raised in the trial court, we deem the issue waived.

The defendant, Zandy Orlando Nelson a/k/a Vandy A. Nelson, appeals as of right his Davidson County Criminal Court conviction of aggravated assault for which he received a sentence of eleven years as a persistent offender, consecutive to a previously imposed sentence. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in denying a motion for continuance when the State filed a notice to seek enhanced punishment on the day of trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. While at work, Employee received a message that her sister had fallen and injured herself. She started to leave for the purpose of checking on her sister. Before she reached her car, she tripped and fell in a parking lot on Employer’s premises. She sustained a broken wrist. Employer denied her workers’  compensation claim, contending that she was on a personal errand. The trial court found the injury arose from and occurred in the course of the employment, and awarded workers’ compensation benefits. Employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the injury to be compensable. We affirm the judgment, and find the appeal to be frivolous.

The petitioner, Artis Whitehead, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing as untimely his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that his petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court tolled the one-year limitations period for filing a post-conviction petition, and because his petition was filed within one year of the Supreme Court’s order denying certiorari, his post-conviction petition was timely. The petitioner also argues that because counsel incorrectly informed him that the deadline for filing his postconviction petition was one year after the Supreme Court denied certiorari, due process requires the tolling of the one-year limitations period. After reviewing the record, we conclude that while the petition was untimely, further development of the record is necessary to determine whether counsel’s advice regarding the limitations period constituted “misrepresentation, either attributable to deception or other misconduct,” see Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 469 (Tenn. 2001), that necessitated due process-based tolling of the limitations period. As such, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing.

This appeal arises from a private condemnation action commenced by Plaintiff pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 54-14-101, et. seq. After the jury of view filed its report, but before the report was acted upon by the trial court, Plaintiff moved for a voluntary nonsuit pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01. The trial court granted the nonsuit, and Defendants filed a Rule 60.02 motion for relief from the judgment granting the nonsuit. The trial court denied Defendants’ motion. We affirm.

The defendant, Stanley Blue, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of facilitation of premeditated first degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed sentences of thirty-four years, fifteen years and six years, respectively; the trial court also ordered the thirty-four-year sentence to be served consecutively to the six-year sentence for a total effective sentence of forty years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to define premeditated murder and felony murder during voir dire, (2) the trial court erred in denying an excusal for cause of a juror, (3) the trial court erred in its instructions regarding facilitation, (4) the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony, and (5) the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for attempted second degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Dennis Charles Arellano, a/k/a Chuck Arellano, a/k/a Dr. Chuck Arellano, pled guilty to one count of TennCare fraud valued between $10,000 and $60,000, one count of impersonating a licensed professional, and one count of reckless endangerment. The defendant agreed to a total effective sentence of six years and restitution in the amount of $30,000, with the manner of service of the defendant’s sentence left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to nine months in the county jail and the balance of his sentence on probation. He was also ordered to perform 200 hours of public service work. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion or, in the alternative, a sentence of full probation. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jason Clark, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner was indicted for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, and he ultimately pleaded guilty as charged. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the indictment against him was fatally defective and, thus, deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and violated principles of due process. Specifically, he argues that the indictment did not state the charges against him; i.e., failed to include the words “especially aggravated robbery” and “first degree felony murder.” The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. We agree and affirm the order summarily dismissing the petition.

Police officer who was injured while driving his patrol car brought this action against his automobile insurer to recover uninsured motorist benefits under his personal policy. The trial court denied insurers’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the regular use exception found in the policy was ambiguous. The insurance company appeals. We reverse and remand.

This case began as a petition for dependency and neglect, which petition was dismissed by consent of the parties. The juvenile court then proceeded to determine custody pursuant to its authority granted by Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-104(f). When custody was placed with Father/Appellee, Mother/Appellant appealed to the Circuit Court of Shelby County. The Circuit Court determined that the Tennessee Court of Appeals was the proper appellate court and entered an order transferring the appeal to us. Mother appeals that transfer. We affirm.