APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Timmy Charles McDaniel, entered pleas of guilty to first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary in exchange for concurrent sentences of life without the possibility of parole and 12 years, respectively. Following his incarceration, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. In this appeal, he challenges the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and reasserts his claim that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of 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 section
50-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions
of law. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff sustained a workrelated injury to her right shoulder, in finding that plaintiff timely notified defendant of her injury, in awarding plaintiff fifty-two weeks temporary total disability benefits, and in determining that she suffered a 16% vocational impairment as a result of her injury. We disagree and therefore affirm the trial court’s decision.

Beneficiaries under a will sought to rescind the sale of a condominium in which they asserted an inheritance interest upon allegations that 1) the consideration paid by the purchasers was so inadequate as to shock the conscience; 2) the purchasers exerted undue influence over the seller; and 3) the seller was mentally incompetent at the time of the sale. Upon findings that the seller was mentally competent at the time of sale, that the purchasers did not exert undue influence over her, and that she had reason to sell the condominium for the amount she did, the trial court ruled that the sale of the condominium should not be set aside. Upon our determination that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s conclusions, we affirm.

Defendant appeals his sentences as a result of guilty pleas to two counts of robbery, a class C felony. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I Standard Offender to one six-year term for case number 0015 to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction and one six-year term, suspended, for case number 0016 to be served on probation. Defendant was also ordered to pay $6,999.00 in restitution for case number 0015 and $621.00 in restitution for case number 0016. The sentences are to be served consecutively. On appeal Defendant argues that he should have received a sentencing alternative other than incarceration and that the sentences should have been ordered to be served concurrently with each other. He does not challenge the length of the individual sentences or the amounts of restitution. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, James Alton Campbell, was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to 15 years’ incarceration. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of a photograph depicting the victim’s injury, and the length of his sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Timothy Roberson, appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition that alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this issue because the Petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory requirements governing review of a denial of a motion to reopen. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117. Also, in this appeal, the Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery in 1995, challenges the denial of his motion for a sample of his own blood. The Petitioner sought to determine his blood type in order to compare it with the blood type found on a towel in the victim’s residence. The court determined that the motion for the Petitioner’s blood sample should be denied as there was substantial evidence of the Petitioner’s guilt presented at trial. Finally, the Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis that alleged newly discovered evidence in the context of a Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), violation. The coram nobis court1 concluded that any relief was time-barred and that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim. We affirm the judgment of the Gibson County Circuit Court.

The petitioner, Roger T. Johnson, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for first degree murder and second degree murder. Because we find that the petitioner has failed to allege a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The trial court determined the Husband to be the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $250 per month for eighteen months. Wife takes issue with these decisions and presents this appeal in which we affirm.

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 trial court awarded 50% permanent partial disability for loss of hearing in both ears to the employee, Dew Roy Neal. The employer, TRW Commercial Steering Division (TRW), appealed, contending that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations; that the trial court erred in excluding excerpts from Mr. Neal's discovery deposition from evidence; that the trial court erred in apportioning the award to a scheduled member, rather than the body as a whole; that the amount of the award was excessive; and that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. We hold that the award should have been apportioned to the body as a whole. As a result, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1) limits the award to two and one-half times the impairment rating. The award is therefore modified to 5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. We also find that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition excerpts, but that the error was harmless. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

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 employee, Roy Clardy, alleged that he had sustained gradual injuries to his right shoulder, right arm and thumb, and left arm. The trial court awarded 22.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the shoulder injury, 75% permanent partial disability to the right arm and 55% permanent partial disability to the left arm. The employer, TRW Commercial Steering Division (TRW), has appealed that ruling, asserting that the trial court erred by making separate awards, rather than a single award to the body as a whole; that the award is excessive; that the trial court erred in excluding portions of Mr. Clardy’s discovery deposition from evidence; and that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. We conclude that a single award should have been made in accordance with the concurrent injury rule and modify the award to 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the combined injuries. We also hold that the trial court erred in excluding Mr. Clardy’s deposition testimony. Finally, we hold that the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

The defendant, Teresa L. Herman, pled guilty to possession of marijuana and driving under the influence (DUI). For each offense, she was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served consecutively. The sentences were to be suspended after the defendant served forty-eight hours in a jail or workhouse as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-401(a)(1) (2004). At the defendant’s request, the trial court granted the defendant jail credit for time she spent during an inpatient evaluation for competency to stand trial, which credit was to apply toward the mandatory service of forty-eight hours in a jail or workhouse. On appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s authority to grant such credit. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the defendant was entitled to sentencing credit to be applied toward the satisfaction of her sentence; however, the credit should not have applied toward the mandatory service of fortyeight hours in the jail or workhouse. Therefore, we must remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Paul S. Bush, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief andcontends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his guilty plea. Specifically,the petitioner argues that counsel met with him only three or four times, failed to sufficiently reviewthe plea agreement with him, told him he had to take the plea, made no attempt to have him mentallyevaluated, failed to file a motion to suppress, and failed to review discovery materials with him priorto entering his guilty plea. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm thejudgment from the post-conviction court.

I believe that the trial court acted well within its authority in granting Appellee credit against the full forty-eight hours of incarceration ordered as a result of her conviction first offense DUI. I would not grant the State’s request to treat this appeal as a common law writ of certiorari and I would dismiss the appeal.

The Appellant, Denise Wiggins, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of aggravated child neglect of her five-year-old daughter. The trial court subsequently merged the two Class A felonies into a single conviction for aggravated child abuse. Following a sentencing hearing, Wiggins was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment as a violent offender. On appeal, Wiggins raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the sentence imposed is excessive. After review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Wiggins’ conviction for aggravated child abuse. We conclude, however, that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction for aggravated child neglect. With regard to sentencing, we remand for resentencing based upon the misapplication of enhancing factors and for adherence with the holding of Blakely v. Washington.

The petitioner, Roy Nelson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Willie Paul Watson, was convicted by a jury in the Dyer County Circuit Court of two counts of assault, and he received a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended after service of ninety days. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court should not have required him to serve ninety days of his sentence. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves a dispute over the division of proceeds from the sale of a failed business venture. The trial court referred certain matters to a special master for determination. The special master made several specific findings, but left issues open to be decided by the trial court. The trial court adopted the findings of the special master and made no additional determinations. Appellants appeal. We must dismiss this appeal because there is no final order resolving all the claims between the parties and remand the matter back to the trial court for further determinations.

I find nothing in the factual allegations of the complaint that, even if true, would warrant the voiding of this election. As with everything else in life, elections are not perfect. Voters — I suppose for various and sundry reasons, e.g., a long ballot, inexperience in voting, lack of familiarity with the voting machine — stay too long in the voting booth. Furthermore, I am sure that there have been instances in the past when voters reflected their choices on paper ballots even though functioning voting machines were available. The statutes instruct that these things should not happen; but there is nothing in any of the subject statutes to indicate the legislature intended that these violations would warrant the voiding of an election. Furthermore, there is nothing in the complaint even remotely suggesting that, had the various votes in question been cast in strict compliance with the statutes, the election result in this case would have been different. To the extent that Stuart supports the majority opinion in the instant case, I disagree with Stuart — a decision inwhich I  was not involved.

Based on a Special Master’s report, the Circuit Court of Shelby County entered judgment against the appellant for damages for breach of a contract to install cabinets in the appellee’s home. The appellant contends that the trial judge did not independently review the evidence in the record and that the damage award was not supported by the evidence. We affirm.

The Trial Court dismissed this election contest on Motion. On appeal we hold the allegation that enough illegal votes were cast to change the outcome of the election when taken as true stated a cause of action.

This is a post-divorce proceeding in which James W. Meier (“Husband”) filed a motion to amend the final decree pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60. The trial court denied the motion. Husband appeals, contending, in part, that the trial court “committed reversible error” when it signed a judgment by consent when it knew that he did not agree to the terms of the proposed judgment. We affirm.

In 2005, Petitioner, Richard M. Stephens, was indicted on ten counts of rape, ten counts of incest and seven counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of rape, one count of incest and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure. As a result, Petitioner was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-two years. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without a hearing.On appeal, Petitioner alleges that the trial court improperly dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. We reverse and remand the dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to eight years in prison as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict, and he also contends that the trial court committed plain error in admitting evidence of the robbery victim’s identification of the defendant as the perpetrator. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction, and that the identification issue is waived on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Antonio Oliver, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree murder. He was sentenced as a violent offender to life in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he claims that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction and that he is entitled to a new trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, opening statement, and closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Bobby Joe McCauley, pled guilty to first degree felony murder and received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In this post-conviction appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel relative to his mental health condition and whether his plea was knowingly entered. The trial court denied relief, and we affirm that judgment.