APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiff homeowners sued defendant residential building contractors for breach of a home construction contract upon allegations of defective workmanship and abandonment of contract. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and awarded actual damages in an amount based upon the finding that the house was of no value. The trial court also awarded damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act upon a finding that the defendants violated the Act by willfully and knowingly misrepresenting that they were bonded. Upon appeal, we find no error in the judgment of the trial court, and accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in all respects.

This appeal involves a jury’s award of punitive damages. The construction company entered into a contract with the State of Tennessee to widen a portion of a highway. The homeowners entered into a contract with the construction company allowing the construction company to place excess materials generated from the highway project on the homeowners’ property. In exchange, the
homeowners would receive compensation based on the cubic fill area, and the company would fill and grade that portion of the homeowners’ property. The project required that the construction
company conduct extensive blasting near the homeowners’ house and vehicles. One of the homeowners became concerned when he witnessed the construction company placing various garbage items and tires on his property near the fill area. After three years, the construction company finished the project. The homeowners brought suit, alleging that the company failed to pay the amount due under the contract and caused damage to their house due to the blasting. The complaint also alleged that the company buried certain items, including tires, on the property which constituted an environmental tort. The homeowners’ amended complaint stated a cause of action in nuisance and also sought an award of punitive damages in the amount of $1 million dollars. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the homeowners for the nuisance claim in the amount of $3,305.00 and found that punitive damages should be imposed on the construction company. The jury found in favor of the construction company for the environmental tort claim. After the second phase of the trial, the jury returned an award of $2 million in punitive damages. The trial court remitted the award to $1 million, the amount of the homeowners’ ad damnum. The construction company appeals, and we reverse and remand in part and affirm in part.

The petitioner, William Anthony Hayworth, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. He received a sentence of twenty years for the Class B felony and ten years for the Class C felony as a Range III, persistent offender, with the sentences to be served concurrently. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Timothy Earl Waters, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In 1989, Waters was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and assault with intent to commit first degree murder. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court’s ruling pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following review, we conclude that the petition fails to allege any ground which would render the challenged judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is affirmed.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s modification of a child’s custody due to a material change in circumstances. Mother/Appellant appeals the trial court’s change of custody of her minor child to Father/Appellee. Specifically, Mother/Appellant asserts that the evidence does not support the finding of a material change in circumstances and also raises issues concerning trial court’s reliance on certain evidence. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm.

Appellant, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a pro se petition for common law writ of certiorari, seeking review of the prison disciplinary board’s findings.  Appellees filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon Appellant’s alleged failure to execute his petition in compliance with the statutory requirements found at T.C.A §§ 27-8-104 and 27-8-106. Finding that Appellant had failed to have his petition notarized, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Appellant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Darron Price, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. Price was convicted in 2003 for attempted first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. State v. Darren Price,¹ No. W2003-01447-CCA-MR3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Feb. 9, 2005). The judgments were affirmed on direct appeal, and our supreme court denied Price’s application for permission to appeal on June 20, 2005. Id. Subsequently, Price filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied Price an evidentiary hearing based upon its determination that the petition was untimely pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations. On appeal, Price argues that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition as untimely. After review, we conclude that the record supports a threshold showing of Price’s compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, § 2(G). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order dismissing Price’s petition, and we remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Price can show by a preponderance of the evidence that he complied with Rule 28 § 2(G) in filing his post-conviction petition.

This wrongful death action was brought by the widow of deceased, who committed suicide in the county jail. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to defendant County on the grounds that the undisputed evidence established that the defendant’s suicide was not foreseeable. On appeal, we affirm.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. Linkous’s Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment. I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that summary judgment was correctly granted in this case because I believe Ms. Linkous has raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether her husband’s suicide was foreseeable under the circumstances, and whether the Defendants’ conduct was reasonable.

Plaintiff brought this action to void two deeds executed by the deceased shortly before he died. Plaintiff sought to void the deeds on the grounds that the grantees of the deed exerted undue influence on deceased in obtaining the deeds and that deceased was not competent to make the deeds. In a bench trial, the chancellor held that plaintiff did not prove undue influence and that the deceased was fully competent to contract and execute the deeds. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Vincent Tracy Morton, entered guilty pleas to three counts of delivery of more than .5 gram of cocaine for resale, Class B felonies, and was sentenced to consecutive eleven year Range I sentences for a total effective sentence of thirty-three years. The defendant did not appeal the sentencing determination. Thereafter, the defendant filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and the court, by agreement of the parties, granted a delayed appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-113. In this appeal as of right, the defendant asserts that the trial court imposed sentences that are excessive in both length and manner of service. The state contends that the trial court imposed appropriate sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, John E. Carter, appeals from the Johnson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the State of Tennessee moves this court, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, to summarily affirm the circuit court’s order. We agree that such motion is well taken, and we affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief.

The Petitioner, Tyrone Felton, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Felton seeks habeas corpus relief from his two 1997 Shelby County convictions for aggravated rape, which were entered as a result of his pleas of guilt to these crimes. On appeal, Felton contends that he was sentenced as a multiple rapist on each of the aggravated rape convictions with a release eligibility of thirty percent, and, because “the statute mandates service of such sentence at 100%,” his sentences are illegal and, therefore, void. Review of the face of the judgments of conviction establishes that Felton was sentenced as a “Standard 30% Range 1” offender and as a “Multiple Rapist.” However, review of the record of the proceedings before us clearly demonstrates that a release eligibility of thirty percent was simply a gratuitous and unwarranted entry which, although approved by the trial judge, was not a “bargained-for element” of Felton’s pleas. See Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124, 130 (Tenn. 2006). Consistent with this holding, we remand the case to the original court of conviction for entry of corrected judgments of conviction for aggravated rape to reflect service of the two sentences as a multiple rapist. Dismissal of the petition is affirmed.

Petitioner, Marcellus Jeffries, appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition because Petitioner did not demonstrate that his convictions were void. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal 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) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee has been treated for a shoulder injury and a back injury. The shoulder injury occurred on July 1, 2000. The back injury occurred on January 28, 2002. After the shoulder injury, the employee sought treatment from numerous doctors for pain in her shoulder. The doctors were unable to determine the cause of her pain until a SLAP lesion was diagnosed on October 29, 2003. On December 13, 2002, the employee filed a complaint seeking compensation for both injuries. The trial court determined that both injuries were compensable and awarded the employee eighty percent (80%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On appeal, the employer contends that the trial court erred in finding that the shoulder injury was not barred by the statue of limitations and as a result erred in determining the employee’s vocational disability by including the shoulder injury.  The judgment is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Antonio Sanders, appeals from the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial, and therefore, that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s order dismissing the petition.

Appellant, Larry Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted aggravated kidnapping.  As a result, he was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to a fourteen-year sentence.  Appellant appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for attempted aggravated kidnapping and that the trial court properly sentenced Appellant.

In 2003 the defendant, Pierre Jackson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, two counts of leaving the scene of an accident, and one count of driving on a revoked license, third offense, receiving an effective sentence of fifty-two years, five months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, he argues that the State’s proof as to prior DUI convictions was deficient, the indictments and jury instructions were deficient, and the trial court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but remand for resentencing as to the convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide upon finding that the trial court’s application of one sentencing enhancement factor violated the Sixth Amendment. We also direct the entry of judgments reflecting the convictions for leaving the scene of an accident.

The Defendant, Sentorya L. Young, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. He received an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole as a repeat violent offender. Thereafter, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that a prejudicial and extraneous piece of paper was sent to the jury room as substantive evidence. The trial court denied the petition. In this consolidated appeal, he raises the following four issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court failed to properly perform its role as thirteenth juror; (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to express a personal opinion through the admission of a chart; and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying his writ of error coram nobis petition. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee’s motion for involuntary dismissal. Appellant brought suit against Appellee under Tennessee Code Annotated § 24-5-111 for damage to his vehicle’s engine allegedly caused by Appellee’s negligent performance of an engine flush procedure. Following Plaintiff/Appellant’s proof, the trial court granted an involuntary dismissal in favor of Defendant/Appellee. Appellant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

After conducting a bench trial, the trial court found the Defendant, Richard Anthony Arriola, guilty of one count of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and two counts o fattempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. This Court remanded the case to the trial court for an order clarifying its findings on the insanity defense. On appeal, the Defendant claims: (1) the trial court erred when it used an improper legal standard for the insanity defense; and (2) the evidence presented at trial proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court applied an improper legal standard for the insanity defense. Therefore, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.

This is a divorce action in which the trial court declared the parties divorced pursuant to § 36-4-129(b) without attributing fault to either party, divided the parties’ property, awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $1500 per month, ordered Husband to pay for Wife’s health insurance, and awarded Wife her attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. Husband appeals the division of property, the award of alimony, and the award to Wife of her attorney’s fees. We affirm.

The Appellant, Jeffrey Lee Turner, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humboldt Law Court for Gibson County. Turner pled guilty to one count of aggravated statutory rape, fifteen counts of statutory rape, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Turner to an effective term of eleven years, eleven months, and twenty-eight days. On appeal, Turner challenges the length of his sentences, specifically alleging (1) that the trial court misapplied enhancement and mitigating factors and (2) that the trial court erred in imposing partial consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Anthony Riggs, was found guilty of the offense of rape, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to twelve years for his conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the length of the sentence was excessive and contrary to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004). Upon review, this Court found that the trial court improperly applied two of the five enhancement factors it found applicable.  Nonetheless, relying on State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005) (“Gomez I”), we concluded that the remaining three enhancement factors were sufficient to enhance Defendant’s sentence to twelve years and affirmed his sentence. State v. Anthony Riggs, No. M2005-02105-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 49553 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, January 8, 2007). Defendant filed an application for permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Defendant’s application for the limited purpose of remanding to this Court for reconsideration of the length of Defendant’s sentence in light of State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (“Gomez II”). After a thorough review of the record, we modify Defendant’s sentence for rape from twelve years to eleven years.

I concur in the majority opinion except I would have not relied upon the presentence report for a Blakely-type admission. See State v. Charles Vantilburg III, No. W2006-02475-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 12, 2008) (holding that statements “made outside the confines of any judicial proceeding . . . do not qualify as admissions for purposes of the Sixth Amendment”).