APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Kenneth Lyle Davis, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and reinstating his original two-year sentence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Phillip Blackburn, was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court should have suppressed the pretrial identifications of the defendant as unduly suggestive, raises numerous challenges to the handling of the testimony of co-defendant Danny Green, asserts that he should have been permitted to impeach the testimony of one of the victims by the use of a prior conviction, insists that the evidence was insufficient, in light of the “numerous” errors at trial, to support the convictions, and complains that the trial court erred in the assignment of weight to the established enhancement and mitigating factors. Because the trial court should have granted the defendant’s request for a mistrial, the judgments of the trial court are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

We granted review of these workers’ compensation cases to decide when a case becomes “pending” for purposes of the prior suit pending doctrine. We conclude that a lawsuit becomes “pending” when the complaint is filed. Although the filing of the complaint initiates the pendency of  the case, a subsequent case will be subject to dismissal under the prior suit pending doctrine only if the court in the prior case has acquired personal jurisdiction over the parties. Accordingly, the lawsuit filed by the employer in West v. Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. was entitled to priority, and the employee’s lawsuit is remanded to the trial court for dismissal. The employee’s lawsuit in Thompson v. Peterbilt Motor Co. has been rendered moot and is dismissed.

The Defendant, Julio Villasana, pled guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide, a Class A felony, and to one count of leaving the scene of an accident involving death, a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years for the former and to two years for the latter. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence for the Class A felony. We affirm the sentences ordered by the trial court.

The defendant, Robert L. Yates, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and in allowing into evidence a photo identification. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The defendant, Reginald Rome, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court Jury of first degree murder and of five counts of attempted first degree murder, Class A felonies. The defendant is serving sentences of life without parole for the first degree murder and twenty years for each of the five attempted first degree murder convictions. The sentences were imposed consecutively, for an effective sentence of life without parole plus 100 years. In this direct appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of first degree murder, (2) that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a nurse about a bullet recovered from the victim at the hospital, (3) that the trial court erred in allowing admission of insufficient evidence about the chain of custody of the bullet recovered at the hospital, (4) that the prosecution withheld information about a technical failure in videotaping the deposition of an unavailable witness, (5) that the trial court erred in ruling that the defendant could not introduce evidence from the deposition of a nontestifying state’s expert and then call its own expert to refute that proof, and (6) that the trial court erred in its jury instructions. Upon consideration of the defendant’s issues, we hold that no error has been shown, and we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The charter and code of ordinances of the City of Memphis set out certain specific provisions, including civil service protections, concerning the organization and operation of the City’s police department. This appeal arises from a suit brought by several high ranking members of the police force who allege that the City created a de facto rank in conflict with the City’s charter and ordinances. The trial court held that the City had impermissibly created a new rank and granted relief in the form of an injunction and a declaratory judgment. It, however, denied claims for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an implied right of action under the City’s civil service rules. We find that the question regarding the appropriateness of the trial court’s awarding injunctive and declaratory relief is now moot and accordingly vacate that part of its decision. We affirm the trial court’s decision that monetary damages are not available.

The Defendant, Brian Foster Vise, was convicted of facilitation of aggravated burglary and filing a false police report, Class D felonies, and facilitation of theft of property valued under $500, a Class B misdemeanor. The Defendant received a sentence of thirty days for the misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years for each felony conviction, ordering the seven-year sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, he presents a single issue for our consideration: whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Probate Court did not have jurisdiction to extend the statute of limitations to elect against the will and that the Agreed Order extending the statute of limitations was not effective. The appellant also claims that the surviving spouse cannot elect against the will because he waived his right to elect by signing a waiver and accepting the benefits of the bequests to him under the will. Finally, the appellant claims that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, homestead exemption, and elective share.  Finding that the Probate Court did not err in extending the statute of limitations, that the surviving spouse did not waive his right to elect against the will and that the Probate Court correctly awarded the homestead exemption, but finding that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, and the surviving spouse’s elective share, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the Probate Court to make recalculations.

This appeal involves a petition for custody of two minor children. The juvenile court named the father primary residential parent and the mother alternate residential parent. The mother appeals; we affirm.

This appeal involves an election contest filed by a losing candidate for county executive. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the county election commission provided the minimum number of voting machines required by state law. However, the plaintiff alleged that the commission should have provided more voting machines because long lines at some voting locations caused many people to leave without voting. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, among other things. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

In 2004 the petitioner, Bradford Thurman, was convicted of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced to five years in the Department of Correction. No direct appeal was taken from this conviction. In 2005 he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.In 2004 the petitioner, Bradford Thurman, was convicted of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced to five years in the Department of Correction. No direct appeal was taken from this conviction. In 2005 he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The issue on appeal in this medical malpractice action is whether the hospital is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of an emergency room physician. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against the hospital finding that it was not vicariously liable for the conduct of the emergency room physician because he was neither its actual or apparent agent. We find the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the hospital on the issue of actual agency because there are no material facts in dispute and the hospital is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of actual agency as a matter of law. We, however, find that material facts are in dispute concerning whether the hospital held itself out to the public as providing medical services; whether the plaintiff looked to the hospital rather than to the individual physician to perform those services; whether the patient accepted those services in the reasonable belief that the services were provided by the hospital or a hospital employee; and, if so, whether the hospital provided meaningful notice to the plaintiff at the time of admission that the emergency room physician was not its agent. Accordingly, we have determined the hospital was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of apparent agency. Therefore, we remand to the trial court the issue of apparent agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Charles Lincoln Faulkner, was convicted of selling more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1000' of school property and delivery of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1000' of school property. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to twenty years in prison and a fine. On appeal, the Defendant alleges the trial court erred by: (1) failing to dismiss the charges because of a material variance between the presentment and evidence at trial; (2) failing to exclude evidence of prior bad acts; (3) failing to exclude expert testimony; (4) instructing the jury in error; (5) failing to bifurcate the trial; and (6) sentencing the Defendant in violation of the Sixth Amendment. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Khalfani Marion, was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the four aggravated robbery counts into two convictions and sentenced the defendant to twenty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and nine years for each aggravated robbery conviction, ordering all sentences to be served consecutively on the basis that the defendant was a dangerous offender.  On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and alleges numerous sentencing errors by the trial court. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions and that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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 section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Employee received medical treatment for low back pain in March 2004. She was pushed to the floor by a patient in April 2004. She had back surgery in July 2004 and returned to work in September 2004.  She continued to have symptoms. In February 2005, she was involved in a serious automobile accident, unrelated to her employment. She had a another surgery in July 2005 and did not return to work thereafter. She filed suit, contending that both surgeries were caused by the April 2004 incident. The Employer denied liability, contending that the first surgery was the result of her preexisting condition and the second surgery was the result of the motor vehicle accident. The trial court found both surgeries to be compensable and awarded 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The Employer has appealed. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding concerning the first surgery but does preponderate against its finding concerning the second surgery. We also find that Employee had a meaningful return to work after the first surgery, and we therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part and remand to the trial court for recalculation of the Employee’s permanent partial disability.

The defendant, Odis Kayaunce Hantz, appeals his Chester County Circuit Court conviction of aggravated robbery, alleging insufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, James C. Murray, was convicted in 1994 by a Davidson County jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life in prison on the murder conviction and twenty-two years on the conspiracy conviction. The court ordered the sentences to be run consecutively for an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. In this habeas corpus petition, the Petitioner argues that the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is thus void. After a thorough review of the issue and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The defendant, Dominic Lamar Blair, pled guilty to attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive terms of twelve years and five years, for an effective sentence of seventeen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by not applying certain mitigating factors and by ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Michael Brad Ramsey, pled guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. He was sentenced to serve forty-five days and granted work release under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-2-128(c). Following a motion by the Defendant, the Maury County Circuit Court granted the Defendant permission to leave confinement to attend an educational institution. The State now appeals from the release order. After review, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that it was authorized to grant release for educational purposes to a DUI second offender. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, John Douglas Duke, pled guilty to statutory rape. In accordance with the plea agreement, the Defendant accepted a sentence of eighteen months, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of sentence. After the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant an alternative sentence and ordered him to serve his sentence in the workhouse. The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. After reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the minor child’s mother, contending that there had been a material change in circumstances, sought a change of custody. After several days of hearings, the trial court transferred custody from the father to the mother. We find that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and also find that the final hearing below was prematurely terminated. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Christopher Shane Poole, pled guilty in the Dickson County Circuit Court to two counts of misdemeanor theft. Under the plea agreement, he received consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days, and his sentence was probated. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $1400.00 to the bank where he made the fraudulent withdrawals of funds. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the bank is not a “victim” for the purposes of the restitution statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304. After a review of the record, we uphold the order of restitution to the bank. We remand for entry of corrected judgments.

This appeal involves the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The appellant prisoner was denied a hearing in front of the appellee board of probation and parole. The prisoner thereafter filed a petition with the chancery court, seeking review of the board’s decision. The chancery court entered an order stating that, in order to avoid dismissal of his petition, the prisoner was required to file, among other documents, a summons for each defendant, with a copy of the petition for each summons to be issued. The prisoner failed to file the summonses, and the chancery court dismissed the petition without prejudice. The prisoner appeals the dismissal, alleging numerous federal constitutional violations. We affirm, finding that the chancery court properly dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to file a summons.

I fully concur in the excellent majority opinion. I would simply add that Tennessee commercial law supports the majority’s conclusion that the payor bank held a valid claim against the defendant. Generally, “an unauthorized signature is ineffective except as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of a person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value.” T.C.A § 47-3-403(a) (2001).