APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a continuing post-divorce dispute regarding child support and related issues. Seven years after the divorce, the former husband filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Marshall County requesting the court to recalculate his child support obligation and to re-establish visitation that had been suspended earlier because of non-payment of child support and failure to abide by the court's orders. The former wife responded by requesting that her former husband be held in contempt for failing to comply with the earlier court orders. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order finding the former husband in "civil" contempt. The court sentenced the former husband to a mandatory ten-day jail sentence and ordered that he remain incarcerated until he paid a portion of his child support arrearage and other financial obligations. The court also recalculated the former husband's child support obligation and ordered the resumption of visitation. On this appeal, the former husband takes issue with the contempt judgment, the earlier suspension of his visitation, and the denial of his request to claim the children as dependents for income tax purposes. While we have determined that the judgment of contempt cannot stand because it is procedurally defective, we find that the remainder of the trial court's August 22, 2003 order is legally and factually sound.

Petitioner, Scott Bradley Price, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Petitioner was convicted for rape of a child and sentenced as a Range I offender, to twenty-one years at one hundred percent, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, Petitioner challenged only the length of his sentence. This Court affirmed that judgment on November 19, 2001. State v. Scott Bradley Price, No. E2000-00441-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1464555 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2001). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was subsequently amended by appointed counsel. In his appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because (1) trial counsel did not investigate Petitioner's claims that his audio recorded confession was materially altered; (2) trial counsel did not advise Petitioner to testify in order to rebut the State's evidence; and (3) trial counsel did not use available medical records to challenge the accuser's testimony at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the defendant of theft of property, $500-$1,000, and forgery of assignment of title. On appeal the defendant presents three issues: (1) Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a retrial based upon newly discovered evidence; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We have reviewed the record and have found all of the defendant's issues to be without merit. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Darrell Phillips, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the court had no authority to revoke his suspended sentences because the State did not seek this action until after the sentences had expired. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Over a span of several years, the Petitioner, Steve G. Hutton, was convicted of eight counts of passing worthless checks, one count of theft, one count of forgery, one additional count of passing a worthless check, and one count of reckless endangerment. The Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his continued confinement is illegal. The trial court dismissed the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jason Mize, pled guilty in the Union County Criminal Court to aggravated robbery. In accordance with the plea agreement, the Petitioner was sentenced to an eight year sentence, to run concurrently with "Knox and Anderson County cases." Subsequently, the Petitioner pled guilty to two aggravated robbery charges in the Anderson County Criminal Court and received concurrent eight year sentences on each count. The Anderson County judgment contains the notation, "This sentence may run concurrent with defendant's Knox County sentence if legally possible." The Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Union County conviction is illegal and void because at the time he entered his guilty plea in Union County, he had not yet been convicted in the "Knox and Anderson cases." The Petitioner filed an additional petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Anderson County judgments of conviction are illegal and void because it is not "legally possible" for the Anderson County sentences to be run concurrently with the Knox County sentence. Both petitions were assigned the same docket number in the Morgan County Criminal Court and subsequently were transferred to the Davidson County Circuit Court, where they were assigned the same Davidson County docket number and ultimately summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because his sentences are illegal and the judgments from the Union County Court and the Anderson County Court are void on their faces. After reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This action stems from a divorce case. In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the circuit court applied an inappropriate standard when disposing of a husband’s motion to dismiss his wife’s complaint for divorce for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The wife asserts that, by considering evidence outside the pleadings, the circuit court converted the husband’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and that the circuit court failed to apply the standards under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when considering the husband’s converted motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Further, we decline to award damages to Appellee for frivolous appeal. Likewise, we decline to award Appellant attorney’s fees on appeal.

This is a legal malpractice action. The client filed this lawsuit against her former attorney, asserting legal malpractice for his failure to re-file a lawsuit under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act within one year after he took a voluntary non-suit of the lawsuit. The trial court granted the former attorney's motion for summary judgment, finding the client's evidence in the underlying workers' compensation action insufficient to establish the damages element of the legal malpractice action. We affirm.

The Petitioner, apparently aggrieved that his sentences were too lenient, now seeks to correct the error by the remedy of habeas corpus. Because the error complained of is non-jurisdictional, I would affirm dismissal of the petition.

A Lauderdale County jury convicted the defendant, Darrell Toomes, of aggravated rape and aggravated criminal trespass in connection with the June 23, 2002 home invasion of Mamie Milliman’s residence in Ripley, and the assault of Ms. Milliman. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months and 29 days for aggravated criminal trespass and 23 years as a violent offender for the aggravated rape conviction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aggravated rape conviction and claims that his 23-year sentence for that conviction is excessive. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Dwight K. Pritchard, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that the guilty pleas he entered were not knowing and voluntary because the sentences imposed by the trial court are illegal. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing the petition. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The State appeals the habeas corpus court’s grant of a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by the Petitioner, Saun Hoover. The Petitioner alleged in his petition that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced as a Range I offender but ordered to serve his sentence at one hundred percent.  The habeas corpus court agreed and granted the petition. On appeal, the State contends that the habeas corpus court erred because the Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty and agreed to this hybrid sentence. Finding that there exists reversible error in the judgment of the habeas corpus court, we reverse this case and remand it to the habeas corpus court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Timothy Harris, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner, James L. Moore, has appealed from the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner. The State has filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, for affirmance of the trial court's judgment. Petitioner opposes the motion. After a thorough review of the record, we grant the State's motion and accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Charles Baldwin, pled guilty to two counts of theft over $10,000. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II offender to concurrent sentences of eight years on each count. The trial court ordered nine months in incarceration followed by community corrections. After violating the conditions of community corrections, the trial court increased the appellant's sentence from eight years on each conviction to ten years on each conviction. The trial court ordered the appellant to serve thirty days of the increased sentence in incarceration before being placed back on community corrections. After the appellant violated the conditions of community corrections for a second time, the trial court simply reinstated the appellant to community corrections. Subsequently, a third violation warrant was issued against the appellant. The trial court determined that the appellant violated, for the third time, the conditions of community corrections and re-sentenced the appellant to ten years on each conviction to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court's decision to increase his sentence and order incarceration. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, and evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle. On appeal the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jordan Hill, was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery and of being a felon in the possession of a handgun. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain these convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Nicholas Riendeau, pled guilty to theft over $1,000, forgery, identity theft, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession with intent to deliver less than .5 grams of cocaine, simple possession of cocaine, possession of a schedule IV drug (clonazepam), and theft over $10,000. The trial court imposed a Range I, effective sentence of five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying full probation. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Appellant, Brandon Jerome Johnson, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court. Johnson pled guilty to possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine for sale or delivery, tampering with evidence, vandalism, and resisting arrest. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to an effective sentence of four years and six months in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Johnson argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a Title IV child support case. The child involved in this action was born in September 2000.  The parents were never married. The child lived with the mother, and the mother began receiving financial assistance from the State when the child was born. In February 2002, the child was legitimated as the natural child of the father. In February 2003, the State, on behalf of the mother, filed a petition against the father for child support payments. In May 2003, the father was ordered to pay child support, plus a monthly amount toward his child support arrearage. The mother filed a petition for rehearing by the juvenile court judge, arguing that the established arrearage was too high, and asserting that she no longer wanted child support from the father because the two were reunited. In November 2003, a hearing was conducted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court terminated the father’s monthly child support obligation and gave him a credit toward the child support arrearage for payments that had been made directly to the mother. The State filed a motion to alter or amend the decision, which was denied. The State now appeals. We reverse.

This is a petition in juvenile court to modify custody. In November 1997, the juvenile court issued an order granting the mother primary residential custody of the parties’ daughter, and granting the father liberal visitation. In October 2001, the father filed a petition to modify his visitation. The father’s petition was later amended to add a request for joint custody. In November 2001, the juvenile court entered an order rescheduling the matter for a later date and granting the father visitation with the child for a full week on alternating weeks, pending the hearing. The mother tried to obtain a rehearing of that order, but was unable to do so because of numerous procedural problems. In July 2004, a final hearing was conducted. The juvenile court determined that no material change in circumstances had occurred since the November 1997 order, and that the child’s best interest would not be served by granting the parties joint custody. The juvenile court slightly modified the visitation schedule for the father set forth in the November 1997 order. From that order, the father now appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Gary Timothy Lawler, pled guilty to one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony; one count of attempted rape, a Class C felony; and one count of attempted sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class D felony. He received a sentence of seven years for each conviction. The sentence for the attempted aggravated sexual battery conviction was ordered to be served consecutively to the remaining two sentences, which were ordered to be served concurrently with each other. Thus, the total effective sentence is fourteen years. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing and requiring him to serve the entire sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Clarence Bunton, of attempted child rape, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to twelve years in confinement. The appellant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Ronald Lee Hamby, entered pleas of guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft over $500, a Class E felony. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of seven years to be served in a community corrections program. Fifteen months later, the community corrections sentence was revoked and the defendant was ordered to serve the remainder of his term in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the single issue presented for review is whether revocation was proper. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant appeals his sentence of three years confinement after entering a guilty plea to theft of property over $10,000. The defendant contends the trial judge erred in failing to sentence him to full probation or other alternative sentencing. Our review reveals that the trial judge complied with sentencing procedures, and we affirm the sentence.