APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a dispute over child support for the parties' two minor children. The trial court denied the Father's petition to modify the support as it had been set in the final decree. In addition, the court placed a lien on two of the Father's properties and awarded fees to the Mother's attorney. On appeal, we affirm the court's decision with regard to child support and attorney fes. However, regarding the lien, we modify the trial court's decision such that a lien remains on only one of the Father's proerties. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed as modified and remand for further proceedings.

This is an uninsured motorist insurance case. Plaintiff/Appellant, Janice C. Young, appeals the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to the unnamed Defendant/Appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm).

This is an unemployment benefits case. The claimant’s employment was terminated, based on alleged misconduct. His application for employment benefits was denied. After administrative appeals, the chancery court affirmed the denial of benefits. The claimant appeals. We affirm the decision of the chancery court based on the claimant’s failure to timely file his petition for a writ of certiorari.

This suit involves a commercial lease agreement entered into by Agmark Foods, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, with Ideal Products, Inc. Plaintiff-Appellee, for container chassis used in transporting commodities and bulk products. Agmark Contends that the Chancellor improperly granted a summary judgment in favor of Ideal.

This is an attack on the service of a summons. The Chancery Court of Davidson County refused to set aside a default judgment based on the sheriff’s return. We affirm.

This is a medical malpractice case where in Ronnie Dale Netherton, Jr., sustained severe brain injury incident to his birth at Baptist Hospital, Inc. The Trial Judge granted a partial judgment in favor of Baptist as to any negligence alleged against it in connectin with the post-natal care of Plaintiff Ronnie Netherton, Jr. Although the Trial Judge overruled themotion for summary judgment alleging negligence by Baptist preceding Ronnie's birth, the Trial Judge, when ruling on the Plaintiff's motino to reconsider his orfer of partial summary judgment, overruled the motion and made the partial summary judgment final pursuant to Rule 54 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in this appeal.

The appellant, Brian Roberson, appeals the denial of a Rule 35(b) “Motion for Correction of Sentence” by the Williamson County Criminal Court. This motion arose from a plea entered on January 14, 1998, by the appellant pursuant to an agreed disposition under Rule 11(e)(1)(C), Tenn. R. Crim. P. After pleading guilty to two counts sale of cocaine, a Class B felony, and one count sale of cocaine, a Class C felony, the trial court, in accordance with the plea agreement, imposed a sentence of eight years for each Class B felony and a sentence of three years for the Class C felony. Apparently, the appellant was serving outstanding sentences of 17.5 years at the time he pled guilty to the current charges. The instant eight year sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with the outstanding sentences of 17.5 years. However, the three year sentence for the Class C felony was ordered to run consecutively to the outstanding sentences for an effective sentence of 20.5 years. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to correct or reduce his three year sentence for the sale of cocaine.
 

Based upon our review of the entire record, i.e., the video transcripts, briefs, and argument of counsel, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.

In this Declaratory Judgment action, the Trial Judge entered summary judgment against Employers Mutual Casualty Company, in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring “[t]he defendant owes the plaintiffs a duty of defense of the action pending in the Circuit Court for Sevier County, Tennessee, captioned Devin Phillips v. Toby Barnes . . . and further owes indemnity coverage respecting such claim , pursuant to the policies of insurance in question . . .”. The judgment was entered pursuant to T.R.C.P. Rule 54.02, and the insurance company has appealed that decision to this Court.

Paul Farnsworth, a pro se inmate, has appealed the trial court’s dismissal of this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action that was brought against numerous individually named defendants. Based upon the following, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
 

In this post-conviction capital case, we granted this appeal to determine whether the jury’s reliance on an invalid felony murder aggravating circumstance was harmless error. Upon review, we hold that the jury's consideration of the invalid felony murder aggravating circumstance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the strength of the remaining valid aggravating circumstances and the relative weakness or absence of any mitigating circumstances. The Court of Criminal Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's dismissal of the post-conviction petition is affirmed.

The Petitioner, James E. Martin, appeals as of right the trial court’s dismissal of his petition fo r writ of habeas corpus relief. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgm ent of the trial court.

We granted this appeal by Ronnie William (Billy) Taylor, the appellant, in  order to address issues pertinent to the sentences he received in the trial  court. In our review, however, we notice as plain error an invalid conviction  that was imposed upon appellant for an offense that was not charged in the indictment.1 Accordingly, for the reasons outlined below, we vacate the invalid burglary conviction and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant physician caused
the death of the decedent in the course of childbirth. The jury found in favor of the defendant physician. The plaintiff appeals, asserting error in the jury instructions and juror misconduct. We
affirm.

I agree with the majority that the jury’s reliance on the felony murder aggravating circumstance in this case violated article I, § 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and that a harmless error analysis must be applied under our decision in State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993). I disagree, however, with both the majority’s application of the Howell analysis and its conclusion.

This case tests the power of the trial court to order an adult, slightly handicapped child to visit his father. The Chancery Court of Rutherford County held that it was the duty of the court to require the visitation. We hold that under the circumstances of this case the court exceeded its jurisdiction.