APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted permission to appeal in these consolidated cases to determine whether  Tennessee’s consecutive sentencing scheme passes constitutional muster under the holdings of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We also address the “physical facts rule” in Defendant Lumpkin’s case. We hold that the trial courts’ imposition of consecutive sentences in these cases did not violate the Defendants’ federal constitutional rights. We also hold that the physical facts rule does not require the reversal of Defendant Lumpkin’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeals in both cases.

In 1997, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Wayford Demonbreun, Jr., of one count of second degree murder and one count of aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-five years in prison. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, his third such petition, alleging that his conviction is void because: (1) the trial court never conducted a hearing on his motion for new trial and, therefore, never performed his duty as a thirteenth juror; and (2) the trial court lacked statutory authority to render a valid judgment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-1-305. The habeas court denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas court erred. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The petitioner, David Allen Lane, appeals both the post-conviction court's ruling regarding his post-conviction relief and the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The judgment of the trial court denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea is affirmed. Because the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel and because the post-conviction court failed to comply with the requirements of State v. Boyd, 51 S.W.3d 206 (Tenn. 2000), the judgment of the post-conviction court vacating and reinstating the judgment is reversed, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

From a trial de novo of an unlawful detainer action in circuit court, the defendant homeowner appeals, pro se, an award of summary judgment in favor of the purchaser at foreclosure. In a filing entered in general sessions – and considered by the circuit court – the defendant homeowner raised the defense of wrongful foreclosure, alleging the lender had failed to notify her of the default, of her opportunity to cure the default, and of the foreclosure sale itself. The plaintiff purchaser failed to address these points on motion for summary judgment, thus leaving open this factual question. Finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact bearing directly upon the plaintiff purchaser’s right to immediate possession of the property, we reverse the award of summary judgment and remand the matter.

In this appeal, we determine the priority between two recorded deeds of trust. Homeowners entered into a line of credit with a credit union secured by a recorded deed of trust on the homeowners’ home. The homeowners subsequently refinanced their home with a bank. The bank paid off the homeowners’ debt to the credit union, and recorded its own deed of trust securing its loan. At that same time, the loan and deed of trust was assigned to a second bank. Despite the payoff of the homeowners’ debt by the assignor bank, the first deed of trust to the credit union was never released, and the homeowners continued to draw on the line of credit. When the homeowners began having financial problems, the assignee bank discovered that the credit union had never released its deed of trust on the homeowners’ property because of a provision in the deed of trust stating that its release was conditioned upon the borrower requesting the cancellation of the line of credit. When the homeowners defaulted on both loans, the question arose as to which party’s deed of trust had priority. The trial court ruled in favor of the assignee bank on the basis that the credit union was equitably estopped from asserting its deed of trust because, at the time of payoff, the credit union did not follow its self-imposed practice of advising if any action other than payoff was required before release of the deed of trust. After careful review, we reverse because we conclude that the assignor bank had the means of discovering that payoff alone was insufficient to trigger the release of the deed of trust and because, under state statutory law, it had prior notice of all prerequisites to release the deed of trust as a result of the credit union’s registration of such deed.

This interlocutory appeal arises from Plaintiff/Taxpayer’s action against the Commissioner of Revenue under Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-1-1802 for a refund of taxes. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents sought by Plaintiff in response to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss based on the statutory limitations period prescribed in section 67-1-1802. We reverse.

This appeal arises from a divorce action. The trial court named Father primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child, and Mother appeals. We affirm.

The defendant, Sean Thomas Corlew, pled guilty to driving under the influence, first offense, in the Tipton County Circuit Court. Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based upon his allegation that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to support the stop leading to his eventual arrest. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Debra Elaine Moore, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide ( Class E felony) and aggravated child abuse (Class A felony). She was sentenced to two years for the Class E felony and twenty-five years for the Class A felony, with the sentences to run concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The defendant raises four issues on appeal including whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt. Because the defendant did not file either a timely motion for new trial or notice of appeal, this court declines to review the subsequently waived issues. However, we do review her issue of sufficiency of the evidence and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts. Therefore, the judgments from the trial court are affirmed.

We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal in order to construe Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-154(a) (2004), the impeding traffic statute. The trial court held that the driver of a slow-moving vehicle does not impede traffic, unless other traffic is made to come to a stop. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Upon review, we hold that the trial court based its decision on an erroneous interpretation of the statute. Therefore, we reverse the trial court and remand for a new suppression hearing.

This appeal involves the validity of a covenant not to compete. The employee, William C. Kitchens (“Kitchens”), became a certified orthotist after entering into the covenant with his employer Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. (“Hanger”). After the employee quit his job and began providing orthotic services for a competitor, Hanger filed suit. Following a trial, the Trial Court determined that the covenant not to compete was enforceable and that Kitchens had breached the covenant. The Trial Court also determined that Kitchens’ new employer, defendant Choice Medical, Inc. (“Choice Medical”), had induced Kitchens to breach the contract in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. §47-50-109, and that an award of treble damages was appropriate. Judgment was entered against Kitchens and Choice Medical jointly for $240,182.00, and against Choice Medical for an additional $480,364.00. Defendants appeal raising numerous issues. We affirm.

This action for workers’ compensation benefits 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) (Supp. 2007) for a hearing and report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The claimant seeks workers’ compensation benefits for the death of his wife, a long distance truck driver, who died after leaping from the cabin of her tractor trailer on a mountainous stretch of highway. Her employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier is in liquidation. As part of the liquidation process, the chancery court assigned the claim to a referee for a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The referee concluded that the wife’s death did not arise out of her employment. The chancery court affirmed the denial of benefits, but on the grounds that the Liquidator had established that the wife’s death was due to willful misconduct. The claimant appeals. This appeal presents two issues: 1) whether the claimant’s tardiness in filing objections to the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law was due to excusable neglect, and 2) whether the chancery court erred in holding that the Liquidator met its burden of proof for establishing the willful misconduct defense. Upon review, we hold that the claimant’s late filing was due to excusable neglect. In addition, we hold that the Liquidator failed to establish that the wife’s death was due to willful misconduct. Accordingly, we reverse the chancery court’s holding on both issues and remand for a new hearing.

In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in staying a disciplinary proceeding pending before a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility. We hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to stay the disciplinary proceeding. Accordingly, we reverse the stay order  issued by the trial court, and we dismiss the respondent’s motion for a stay.

The Appellant, Anthony E. Perry, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Perry was convicted of first-degree felony murder in the perpetration of kidnapping and especially aggravated kidnapping and is currently serving an effective sentence of life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal to this court. In July, 2002, Perry filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging, among other issues, multiple grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel, and, following the appointment of counsel, an amended petition was filed seeking a delayed appeal of his convictions upon the ground that Perry had been deprived of his right to seek second-tier appellate review. At the post-conviction level, the State conceded Perry’s entitlement to a delayed appeal. Nonetheless, on September 17, 2002, the post-conviction court denied Perry’s post-conviction petition based upon its perceived lack of jurisdiction to grant a delayed appeal, without addressing the merits of Perry’s remaining post-conviction issues or reserving them for a later determination. The Appellant then appealed the dismissal of his petition to this court. While the appeal was pending in this court, the post-conviction court entered a second order, on January 2, 2003, reversing its prior dismissal of the petition and granting Perry a delayed appeal. No action was ever taken by Perry in furtherance of the delayed appeal. Perry later moved to voluntarily dismiss his appeal, which was still pending before this court. Within one year from the voluntary dismissal of the appeal, the post-conviction court appointed substitute counsel to represent Perry for the purpose of pursuing the ineffective assistance claims alleged in the petition. Following the filing of three amended post-conviction petitions, a post-conviction hearing was held on December 21, 2005, at which Perry asserted ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s (1) failure to seek suppression of his warrantless arrest within his home, in violation of Payton v. New York, and (2) failure to request lesser-included instructions at trial. After hearing the evidence presented, the post-conviction court denied the petition upon the merits. Perry now appeals that denial. On appeal, the State initially argues that the post-conviction court was without jurisdiction to review Perry’s alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of this argument, the State asserts that the post-conviction court lost jurisdiction of the case when Perry filed a timely notice of appeal to this court from the post-conviction court’s order entered on September 17, 2002, denying post-conviction relief. We agree. As the September 2002 order specifically denied the post-conviction petition, without reservation of any issues, Perry’s only relief was through the appeal to this court. By voluntarily dismissing that appeal, the Appellant has defaulted those issues which collaterally challenged his conviction. The subsequent order entered by the post-conviction court granting the delayed appeal had no force and effect, and any actions, including the filing of amended post-conviction petitions, were not validly before the post-conviction court. Thus, the post-conviction court’s order of September 5, 2006, denying relief must be reversed and vacated.

The petitioner, Yasin Hawkins, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition is defective because it does not include a copy of the judgment which is the basis for the petitioner’s being restrained, and it fails to present a claim which is cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

A Lincoln County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Tony E. Cannon, Jr., of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court merged the conviction of aggravated assault with the conviction of attempted second degree murder and imposed an effective sentence of 12 years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the 12-year sentence imposed for attempted second degree murder is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Gerry Lynn Hensley, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humboldt Law Court of Gibson County. Hensley pled guilty to two counts of Class B vehicular homicide by reason of intoxication and was subsequently sentenced by the trial court to concurrent eight-year sentences as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, Hensley raises the following challenges to the imposed sentences: (1) whether the trial court erred in considering an enhancement factor when no notice was provided by the State of its intent to rely upon such factor as required by local rules; (2) whether the court erred in considering dismissed charges in applying the enhancement factor of a prior criminal history; (3) whether the court erred in failing to specifically identify the mitigating and enhancing factors found and in failing to apply other certain mitigating factors which Hensley argues are applicable; (4) whether the court erred in not sentencing Hensley as an especially mitigated offender; and (5) whether the court erred in denying an alternative sentence. Following review of the record, we affirm.

The Defendant, Lovard D. Horton, pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine, possession with intent to sell seventy pounds or more of marijuana, and possession with intent to sell or deliver 300 pounds or more of marijuana within 1000 feet of a school zone. The trial court sentenced the Defendant pursuant to the plea agreement to an effective sentence of twenty-eight years in prison. The Defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.  The petitioner, Dallas R. Myers, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record, we are persuaded that the post-conviction court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s post-conviction petition. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Therefore, we grant the state’s motion, and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This action charged the defendant with engaging in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish that he suffered a loss of money or property. On appeal, we affirm the summary judgment.

Appellant, Michael Dewayne Mann, was found guilty by a Dyer County Jury of driving under the influence and for violation of the implied consent law. In a bifurcated hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of third offense driving under the influence. As a result, Appellant received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which was to be suspended after the service of 150 days of incarceration. The trial court denied a motion for new trial. On appeal, the following issues are raised for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court improperly allowed a police officer and the prosecutor to refer to Appellant’s prior record. We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Furthermore, we decline to address the evidentiary issues as plain error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I concur with the Court’s conclusion that, in the context of litigation regarding a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the employer and the employer’s lawyer are not entitled to have ex parte communications with the physician treating the employee. However, I base my conclusion on legal principles that differ from the “contract implied in law” theory relied upon by the Court.

In this claim for workers’ compensation, the defendant/employer filed a motion seeking permission to have an ex parte interview with the treating physician regarding the medical condition of the plaintiff/employee. The employer also sought an order requiring the employee to submit to an independent medical evaluation. The trial court denied each motion, and we granted the employer’s application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon review of the record and consideration of the applicable law, we hold that (1) the employer may not communicate ex parte with the employee’s treating physician without first obtaining a waiver of the implied covenant of confidentiality from the employee; and (2) the employer’s request for the worker to undergo a medical evaluation should be granted unless the trial court determines that the request is unreasonable.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Anthony Harris, has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Petitioner alleged that he was ineffectively represented and that his sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.