APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Lake County jury convicted the Defendant, Demp Douglas, of one count of aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial based upon the victim’s testimony that he met the Defendant shortly after the Defendant was released from prison. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Timothy L. Dulworth, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that his convictions are void. Upon a review of the record in this case, we conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Terrance Antonio Cecil, of assault and false imprisonment, both Class A misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of six months incarceration, with all but sixty days on each suspended, followed by ten months on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it considered his prior arrest record in sentencing; and (3) the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of attempted false imprisonment and attempted assault. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Seeking relief from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2008 conviction of attempted aggravated robbery, Timothy L. Rose appeals and claims that his plea of guilty to the conviction offense is invalid because it was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel and was unknowingly and involuntarily made. The record, however, supports the post-conviction court’s findings and its denial of post-conviction relief. For that reason, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

A Rutherford County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Glover P. Smith, of fabricating evidence in counts 1 and 2 and filing a false report in counts 3 through 8. During a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the appellant’s convictions of filing a false report in counts 3, 4, and 5 and ordered that he serve an effective sentence of one year in jail followed by six years of probation. Subsequently, the trial court granted the appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the fabricating evidence convictions based upon insufficient evidence. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred by granting the appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. In a counter-appeal, the appellant maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on “knowingly”; that newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial; that the State committed a Brady violation; that his multiple convictions in counts 3, 4, and 5 and in counts 6, 7, and 8 violate double jeopardy; that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences and improperly denied his request for full probation; and that the cumulative effect of the errors warrants a new trial. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting the appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and reinstate his convictions of fabricating evidence in counts 1 and 2, the merger of the convictions, and the sentence. We also conclude that the trial court should have dismissed the charges of filing a false report in counts 4 and 5 because they were mutliplicitous with the charge in count 3. The appellant’s remaining convictions and sentences for filing a false report in counts 6, 7, and 8 are affirmed.

The Weakley County Grand Jury indicted the petitioner, Bruce Alexander Tuck, in three separate cases. In each case, the petitioner was indicted for aggravated rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, and various other related offenses. The petitioner pled guilty in each case, agreeing to serve three, consecutive twenty-year sentences at 100 percent, resulting in an effective sentence of sixty years. No direct appeal was filed. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that his guilty pleas were not entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. He claims that when he entered his pleas, he was mentally ill and subject to mistreatment and threats in an attempt to induce him to plead guilty. He also alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to discuss the facts and circumstances underlying each of the indictments charging the petitioner; (2) failing to review the audio and visual recordings of the petitioner’s first statement to police; (3) failing to file a motion to suppress the petitioner’s confession; and (4) failing to discuss with the petitioner the possibility of withdrawing his pleas. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court concluded that the petitioner did not prove his assertions. Based upon our review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petitioner’s petition for postconviction relief.

Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of Petitioner’s fifth petition for habeas corpus relief. After a thorough review of the briefs and the appellate record, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

Petitioner, Shundell Lynn Dickerson, was charged with first degree premeditated murder. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the lesser-included offense of facilitation to commit first degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to 60 years incarceration. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Shundell L.Dickerson, No.M2006-02021-CCA-R3-CD,2008 WL 2780591 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, filed July 18, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Jan. 20, 2009). Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief and was appointed counsel to represent him. Petitioner alleged several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order denying relief. Petitioner now appeals. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

We accepted this appeal of a personal injury action to determine whether the dismissal of a defendant pursuant to a written order not made final under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02 renders that defendant “not a party to the suit” for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119. We answer this question in the affirmative. Because the Court of Appeals upheld the judgment of the trial court dismissing the appellees from the Manns’ second amended complaint as time-barred, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Petitioner,Ralph Paul Marcrum,appeals as of right from the Davidson CountyCriminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his guilty plea to one count of aggravated burglary. The Petitioner contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Wife appeals the trial court’s division of marital property and award of alimony among other issues. The trial court granted Wife a divorce on the ground of Husband’s inappropriate marital conduct. Wife was awarded 51% of the marital assets and Husband received 49%. Wife was awarded $5,000 month in alimony in futuro until she reached the age of 65, at which time the amount would be reduced to $2,000 until Wife’s death or remarriage. Wife contends that the trial court erred in its determination as to the division of marital property, its award of alimony, its denial of her request for an additional $170,000 as alimony in solido due to Husband’s alleged dissipation of assets, its denial of Wife’s request that Husband pay her medical insurance following the end of an eight-year employment agreement with Husband’s company, and its denial of her request for attorney’s fees and expert witness fees in the amount of $115,528.88. For his part, Husband contends the trial court made a mathematical error regarding the parties’ 2010 tax liability. We affirm the trial court in all respects except for the tax liability and remand the issue of the parties’ 2010 tax liability. Although Wife does not challenge this issue, we are unable to determine the correct amount; thus, we remand this issue for the court to determine whether a mathematical error exists and, if so, to modify the decree accordingly.

While working for a law firm in which he was a shareholder, an attorney performed legal services for clients and failed to remit fees owed to the law firm. Members of the law firm confronted the attorney about the misappropriated legal fees shortly after the attorney resigned his position at the law firm to assume elected public office. As a result of his conduct, the attorney pleaded guilty to theft and to willful failure to file income tax returns. During a subsequent investigation, the Board of Professional Responsibility discovered that the attorney had accepted loans from the law firm’s clients while he was employed at the law firm. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that the attorney should be suspended for four years. The attorney appealed, and the chancery court applied additional mitigating factors to reduce the suspension to two years. We hold that the chancery court erred in modifying the judgment without finding that any of the circumstances in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3 applied. We also hold that the hearing panel erred in imputing a conflict of interest to the attorney with respect to the loan from the law firm’s client and in misapplying aggravating and mitigating factors. Despite these errors, we conclude that the length of suspension imposed by the hearing panel is consistent with the sanctions imposed on attorneys for similar conduct. We therefore reverse the chancery court’s reduction of the suspension to two years and affirm the hearing panel’s imposition of a four-year suspension.

Peggy Giffin d/b/a Re/Max Realty Center and Racia Futrell (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued Anthony Sawyer and Hope Sawyer alleging, among other things, that the Sawyers had breached a real estate sales agency contract. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the Sawyers did not breach the sales agency contract and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to collect a commission under the sales agency contract. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings, and we affirm.

Petitioner, Curtis Beechem, pled guilty to first degree murder and attempted aggravated robbery. He received sentences of life for first degree murder and four years for attempted aggravated robbery to be served concurrently. In this appeal from the denial of the postconviction relief, Petitioner asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the trial court and trial counsel misinformed him as to the length of his sentence. He also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel misinformed him as to the length of his sentence, and trial counsel failed to object to a statement made by the post-conviction court concerning the sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Vincent D. Hadley, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of the habeas corpus petition filed by Petitioner. Petitioner asserts on appeal that the indictment, which resulted in his guilty plea to felony murder in 1994, is defective and that the judgment is void. After reviewing the briefs of the parties and the entire record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

Petitioner, Larry C. Pitman, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief which the trial court summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. The petition seeks to set aside Petitioner’s 2006 convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. As pertinent to this appeal, Petitioner alleged that the indictment for each offense which led to his jury convictions is defective because each count of the indictment failed to allege at least one essential element of the criminal charge. After a thorough review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

This is an estate case in which Bobbie Bryant appeals the trial court’s affirmation of the fifth and final accounting of the deceased’s estate. Having concluded that the issues raised on appeal do not pertain to the fifth and final accounting of the estate, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is an adoption case involving Shyann B. (“the Child”) (DOB: April 11, 2005). We are asked to decide a jurisdictional question. At an earlier time, a juvenile court adjudicated the Child dependent and neglected. She was placed in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and placed by it in the foster care of Teresa S. (“Foster Mother”). Louis F. B. (“Uncle”), the Child’s maternal great uncle, had also sought custody, but his petition was ultimately denied. After the parental rights of the Child’s biological parents were terminated, Foster Mother filed a petition to adopt in the 1 trial court. Uncle responded with a counterclaim seeking to intervene and adopt, or, in the alternative, to obtain custody of the Child. At trial, Foster Mother took a voluntary nonsuit of her adoption petition and, on the same day, refiled a petition for adoption in the Chancery Court for Greene County. In the trial court, Uncle contended that the trial court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate his counterclaim for custody. The trial court found that, by virtue of Foster Mother’s filing in chancery court, jurisdiction over the Child was then in chancery court. Accordingly, the trial court entered a judgment reciting “this cause is hereby dismissed.” Uncle appeals. We affirm.

This parental termination case concerns the child’s surname. The appellant biological father consented to the termination of his parental rights so that the child could be adopted by the appellee adoptive parents. At the conclusion of the telephonic hearing in which the biological father confirmed that he consented to the termination of his parental rights, the adoptive parents requested that the child’s surname be changed. This request was granted. The biological father now appeals the trial court’s decision on the child’s surname. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the cancellation of a homeowner’s insurance policy. The plaintiff homeowner asked the defendant insurance agent to obtain a homeowner’s insurance policy for a home that was not her residence. The agent contacted the defendant intermediary insurance agency, and an insurance policy was issued. The homeowner paid the insurance premiums to the insurance agent, who failed to pay them to the intermediary insurance agency. The policy was cancelled for nonpayment. The cancellation notice was sent to the insurance agent and to the insured address, but not to the residential address of the homeowner. A fire occurred and the homeowner’s claim was not paid. The homeowner sued the intermediary insurance agency. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant intermediary insurance agency. The homeowner appeals. We reverse in part, holding that the intermediary insurance agency did not negate the homeowner’s claim based on the apparent authority of the insurance agent.

This appeal involves the release of ballots for a condominium association election. The plaintiff condominium owner was a candidate for a position on the board of directors for the defendant condominium association. After losing the election, the plaintiff condominium owner requested to audit the vote and see the other members’ written ballots. The condominium association provided a tally sheet reflecting the number of ballots cast for each candidate but declined to release the actual ballots. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit, contending that the condominium association had a statutory obligation to release the ballots to him. The plaintiff later filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the summary judgment motion and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff condominium owner now appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff condominium owner does not have a statutory right to see the association members’ written ballots.

Father and Mother filed a joint motion to modify a parenting plan entered by the trial court in 2010. In their motion, Father and Mother asked the court to reduce Father’s child support obligation, to modify the parenting time schedule, and to amend the plan to permit a known registered sexual offender to be in the presence of their children. The trial court denied the motion with respect to allowing a sexual offender to be in the presence of the children, and otherwise granted the motion. Mother appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Patrick Wayne Carter, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his probation and order that he serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the revocation of his probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Delivetrick Dewon Blocker, appeals the Morgan County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The married parents of two minor children are involved in custody/visitation litigation in the trial court. The most recent decision by the trial court was prompted by a petition filed by he children’s father. The trial court denied the father’s attempt to obtain custody and suspended his visitation rights pending his completion of anger management and parenting classes. The father appeals. Because the trial court’s judgment is not a final judgment, we dismiss the father’s appeal.