APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Billy Joe Harris, appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing his motion for a new trial. The appellant claimed he was entitled to a new trial due to newly discovered evidence. The trial court found the motion was not timely filed pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was tried and convicted on April 27, 1989. His motion for a new trial was denied. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court also affirmed the sentence. He subsequently instituted four suits for post-conviction relief. All four suits were denied at every stage of the proceedings. The present motion was filed June 26, 1995 as a separate action.  After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law governing the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this Court the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

The Defendant appeals to this court as of right from a judgment entered on a Weakley County jury verdict convicting him of attempt to commit first degree murder and aggravated assault. The defendant presents four issues for review: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict for attempt to commit first degree murder; (2) that principles of double jeopardy prohibit his conviction for both attempt to commit first degree murder and aggravated assault; (3) that the twenty-five year sentence for attempt to commit first degree murder is excessive; and (4) that the court erred in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively to four prior sentences of incarceration.   After review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s decision.

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on October 3, 1996, and the petitioner filed his brief on October 24, 1996. The petitioner was originally indicted for aggravated rape in January 1981, and was convicted of the same in May 1981. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.

The issue on appeal in this medical malpractice action is whether the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed. The plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed this medical malpractice action on December 5, 2003, against three healthcare providers for a surgical procedure performed on husband on December 8, 2000. All defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment based on the statute of limitations. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding the plaintiffs had knowledge of enough facts more than one year before filing the lawsuit to put a reasonable person on notice that an injury had been suffered as a result of wrongful conduct by the defendants. The trial court also found that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply to toll the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

The biological father of S.A.W. appeals the termination of his parental rights. He maintains that he had no notice of the final hearing. The notice of the hearing was sent in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.02 to the address supplied by the biological father. Proof of due mailing creates a presumption of receipt and nothing in the record rebuts this presumption. We affirm.

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on October 3, 1996, and the petitioner filed his brief on October 21, 1996. The petitioner was originally indicted on eight counts of aggravated rape and one count of rape in May 1984, and was convicted of rape in October 1984. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.

Appellant Michael Bellew pled guilty in the Henry County Circuit Court to operating a motor vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act. As a Range I standard offender, Appellant received a sentence of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he presents the following issue: whether his sentence is excessive.  After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendants appeal the trial court’s failure to set aside, under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, the grant of summary judgment in this intentional tort case. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of attempt to commit second-degree murder and aggravated assault. After a hearing, he was sentenced to twelve years on the attempt offense and eight years on the assault offense, to run concurrently. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that his two convictions must be merged; that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; and that his sentence is excessive.  Finding merit in the first of these issues, we reverse and dismiss the defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault. We otherwise affirm the judgment below.

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on November 12, 1996, and the petitioner filed his brief on November 15, 1996. The petitioner was originally indicted on one count of aggravated rape, one count of incest, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery in June 1989, and was convicted of the same in October 1989. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.

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 alleged that he sustained a permanent injury to his lower back as a result of a fall. Employer took the position that Employee did not sustain a permanent injury. At trial, an evaluating physician testified that Employee had a 7% permanent impairment to the body as a whole; two physicians who examined Employee shortly after the accident testified that he had no impairment. The trial court awarded benefits for 33% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Employer has appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in finding that Employee had sustained a permanent injury. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the decision of the trial court and affirm the judgment.

The petitioner, Adrian Wilkerson, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The biological father of F.M.B.P.W. appeals the termination of his parental rights. He maintains that he should have been personally served rather than served by publication and that he had no notice of the final hearing. Because we have determined that the statutory requirements of service by publication were not met, we vacate the order and remand the case to 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. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding under TCA 50-6-207 (4) (B) that the employee is totally incapacitated from working at an occupation that brings the employee an income and the resulting award of one hundred percent permanent and total disability when the collective evidence of all the vocational experts was a vocational impairment ranging from 55% to a maximum of 80%. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding, and award and affirm the judgment.

The defendant, Charles Edward Meeks, was indicted for first-degree murder. The jury found him guilty as charged and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.  He has appealed as of right, raising for review the trial court's instructions to the jury and the State's conduct during closing argument. We find the defendant's issues are without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Richard Wayne Otey, appeals as of right from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Williamson County, finding him guilty of aggravated assault in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a). Following a sentencing hearing, the trial judge sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender, to be served consecutively to a sentence for which the appellant was on parole at the time of the offense at issue in this case.

This appeal involves a change in child custody and a petition for contempt. When the parties divorced, they agreed upon a parenting plan providing that Mother would have primary custody of their two sons. Less than a year later, Father filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, seeking primary custody. Mother filed a counter-petition, also seeking modification of the parenting plan. She also filed a petition to cite Father in contempt. Since the divorce, Mother had become pregnant by another man, and she did not tell the child’s father that the child was born. Mother also lied to Father and others about the circumstances surrounding the child’s birth. Mother had remained unemployed since the divorce, and her only source of monthly income was child support from Father for his two sons. The parties’ oldest son was doing poorly in school and was frequently tardy or absent. The trial court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred, and that it was in the best interest of the children for Father to have primary custody. The court also found that Father’s actions did not rise to the level of contempt. Mother appeals, challenging the trial court’s decision to change custody, its refusal to find Father in contempt, and other procedural issues. Finding no error, we affirm.

On February 10, 1994, the appellant was convicted by a jury of his peers of three counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication.¹ Following a sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced to six years incarceration for each count with each sentence to be served consecutively. Much aggrieved by his convictions and resultant sentences, the appellant appeals from the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 3, Tenn. R. App. P.

The defendant, Brandon D. Thomas, was convicted of one count of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor; and three drug offenses including possession with intent to sell a Schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), a Class B felony; possession with intent to sell a Schedule III controlled substance (dihydrocodeinone), a Class D felony; and simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the cocaine offense, eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the other drug offenses and six months for the conviction for resisting arrest, with all the sentences to run concurrently for a total effective sentence of ten years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his cocaine conviction and that he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we find that the defendant was sentenced improperly but not for the issues on which he appeals. The sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Class D felony conviction is illegal because the minimum sentence for a Class D felony is two years. We remand to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the minimum sentence and affirm the trial court as to the other raised issues.

The Appellant, Maurice Lashaun Nash, appeals the sentencing decision of the Tipton County Circuit Court. Under the terms of a plea agreement, Nash entered guilty pleas to six felonies and one misdemeanor and received an effective ten-year sentence. The agreement provided that the ten-year sentence would run consecutively to an effective ten-year sentence which Nash was serving at the time of sentencing. The terms of the plea agreement also provided that the manner of service of the ten-year sentence would be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Nash’s request for alternative sentencing, which Nash now asserts was error. After review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The appellant, James Polk, appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery entered in the Circuit Court of Maury County. The appellant contends that the trial court should have ordered a new trial pursuant to Rule 33(f) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.  After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamilton County grand jury indicted the defendant, Frank Bennie Jackson, Jr., for possession of cocaine for resale, driving without a license, and failure to stop at a traffic signal. The defendant filed a motion to suppress alleging that the search of his vehicle incident to a custodial arrest was illegal because he should have received a citation in lieu of arrest for driving without a license and running a red light, both class C misdemeanors. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court agreed and suppressed all evidence seized as a result of the search incident to arrest. It is from this order that the state now appeals. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Shamarcus Antwan Hunt, was convicted of the sale of cocaine under .5 grams, a Class C felony, and possession of cocaine over .5 grams with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class B felony. He was sentenced, respectively, to eight years and twelve years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court should have declared a mistrial following allegedly improper remarks by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect that the defendant’s sentences are to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently.

The appellant, Darren Campbell, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. This Court reduced his conviction to second degree murder and remanded to the trial court for sentencing.¹ The appellant was sentenced as a Range I offender to 23 years incarceration. His sole issue on appeal is whether his sentence was excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant was charged in the indictment with theft of property valued between ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). On September 21, 1995, she filed an application for pretrial diversion. The district attorney general denied the application on September 28, 1995. The defendant then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the  district attorney general’s decision to deny her application. After a hearing, the trial court found that the State had abused its discretion and ordered the defendant placed on pretrial diversion. In this appeal pursuant to T.R.A.P. 9, the State contends the trial court erred in finding that the State had abused its discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.