APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Kevin B. Thompson, appeals from the Hardin County Circuit Court’s probation revocation for his two-year effective sentence for his guilty pleas to violation of a motor vehicle habitual offender order, a Class E felony, and violation of the registration law, a Class C misdemeanor. He claims that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in incarceration. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm its judgment.

The defendant, Jerome Emmett Huntley, was convicted of introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony, and public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of five years, six months and thirty days. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for introduction of contraband into a penal institution and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that the defendant was not entitled to a mistrial after Jimmy Calloway testified in rebuttal that the defendant said he did not want to “go back to prison for six more years.” A criminal defendant is entitled to impartial and unbiased jurors who are not influenced by inadmissible and prejudicial information such as the defendant’s being convicted of another crime. See State v. Claybrook, 736 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1987).

The Defendant, Christopher Brian Knight, was convicted of one count of theft over $10,000, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial; (3) he was deprived of a fair trial before an impartial judge; (4) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him; (5) he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to confirm that he had personally decided to waive his right to testify; and (6) the trial court improperly sentenced him to the maximum sentence. We conclude that all of these contentions lack merit. We accordingly affirm.

The Petitioner pled guilty in Sullivan County, Tennessee, to one count of robbery and one count of evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to five years for his robbery conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for his evading arrest conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, claiming that his judgments were void because neither judgment ordered his sentences to be served consecutively to his unserved sentence in Maryland. The habeas court dismissed the petition without a hearing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

In 1996, a Hamilton County grand jury indicted the Petitioner, Delivetrick D. Blocker, for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. In 1997, a Hamilton County jury convicted the Petitioner of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his murder conviction. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-two years for especially aggravated robbery, to be served consecutively to his life sentence. In 2008, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief, which the habeas court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition because: (1) the indictment charging him with murder was fatally defective because it did not allege an overt act; (2) the indictment charging him with especially aggravated robbery was fatally defective because it varied from the judgment convicting him of attempted especially aggravated robbery, which requires proof of an overt act; and (3) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order his sentences to be served consecutively. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is an wrongful death action arising under a theory of premises liability. Plaintiff’s husband died as a result of injuries he sustained after tripping over a piece of concrete embedded in a dirt path. Plaintiff alleged that two of the defendants, who were under a separate maintenance contract with the owner of the property, failed to exercise the required due care in the maintance, inspection, and repairs of the path. The trial court granted directed verdicts for both defendants after finding that neither owed a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. We agree that defendant Brooks Shaw did not have a duty to maintain the path. However, we have determined that defendant Town and Country did owe a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact for the jury to decide. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant, Virgil Samuels, pled guilty to especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated rape. The defendant received a total effective sentence of thirty-five years to be served as a violent offender. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he was coerced by counsel into pleading guilty. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a nuisance case. The plaintiff landowner filed a complaint alleging a continuous nuisance caused by grading completed on adjacent property. The plaintiff alleged that the grading had altered the natural drainage pattern, causing damage to her house. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The defendants sought summary judgment, raising the statute of limitations as a defense. The trial court agreed and granted defendants’ motion. Finding that a genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute, we reverse. 

The defendant appeals as of right from his Hamilton County jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a life sentence. He contends that the trial court erred by admitting unduly prejudicial autopsy photographs of the victim and that the evidence was insufficient to show that he premeditated the killing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant hospital filed suit against Appellee insurance company for damages arising from Appellee’s alleged impairment of the Appellant’s hospital lien. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellant hospital, finding that Appellant had perfected its lien under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101, and that the Appellee had impaired that lien pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-104. The trial court, however, limited Appellant’s recovery to the amount of coverage under the insurance policy. We affirm as modified herein.

The petitioner, Jason Crawford, appeals the circuit court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court dismiss the appeal as untimely filed or, in the alternative, affirm the circuit court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the petitioner failed to timely file his notice of appeal and his claims do not warrant consideration in the “interest of justice.” Therefore, his appeal is dismissed.

In this interpleader action, plaintiff held an IRA account established by decedent. When decedent died dispute arose between his companion and his blood relatives, because he had designated his companion as the sole beneficiary of his IRA account, but in his Will he gave the IRA account to his relatives. The contending parties raised this dispute in their pleadings and after an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court ruled that the designee on the IRA account was entitled to the proceeds because the relatives did not carry the burden of proof to establish undue influence was exercised on the decedent when he established the IRA account. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand with the cost of the cause taxed to appellants.

The petitioner, Jerry Timberlake, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief based on his failure to verify the petition under oath. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Jimmy Stuart Mynatt, appeals his convictions of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life plus twenty-five years.  On appeal, he contends that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress statements made to the police; and the trial court erred in instructing the jury. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

This is a wrongful death action brought under a theory of medical malpractice. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs filed their complaint after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. After careful review, we find that Plaintiffs had notice of their claim no later than February 27, 2003, and their lawsuit was not timely filed. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Earice Roberts, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the trial court should have granted him relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence that a police officer and witness for the State had committed crimes in her official capacity as manager of the evidence and property room. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the petition.

The petitioner, Cornelius Richmond, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which rendered his guilty pleas involuntary and unknowing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A former inmate in the Davidson County jail filed a Petition for Permanent Injunction against the Davidson County Sheriff and the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office in which he alleged he had been mistreated while incarcerated. The defendants moved to dismiss the former inmate’s petition for injunctive relief on the ground that he was no longer incarcerated, and thus his action for injunctive relief was moot. The plaintiff failed to respond to the motion and did not attend the hearing on the motion. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss from which the plaintiff appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

The appellant filed this action against the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Lottery Commission alleging that the defendants breached a contract with him by failing to pay him the $171,000,000 grand prize for the December 8, 2004 Powerball drawing.2 The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding Appellant’s expert’s standard of care and causation opinions and in granting summary judgment to the Appellees as to Appellant’s medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims. We affirm.

This appeal came on to be heard upon the record of the Chancery Court of Greene County and briefs filed on behalf of the respective parties. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Chancery Court should be vacated and this case remanded.

I fully concur in the majority’s conclusion that Memphis Housing Authority (“MHA”) owed a duty to its tenants to take reasonable steps to prevent them from suffering harm, and I concur in the reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. I write separately to reaffirm my view that “any discussion of foreseeability in the context of duty encroaches upon the role of the finder of fact.” Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347, 375 (Tenn. 2008) (Holder, J., concurring and dissenting).

The plaintiffs, survivors of a tenant shot and killed by the criminal act of another tenant, filed suit against the defendant housing authority, alleging negligence and breach of contract for failure to provide a safe premises. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the housing authority and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted review to determine whether the housing authority owed a duty of care, an essential component of the claim, under the theory of negligence. Because the potential for violence in the housing project was reasonably foreseeable and the gravity of the harm outweighed the burden on the housing authority to have taken reasonable protective measures, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.