APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of probation. The defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of possession of marijuana for resale and agreed to a six-year sentence as a Range I offender. Following a hearing to determine the manner of service, the trial court denied probation and ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. Upon careful review, we affirm the trial court's denial of probation; however, we remand the matter for the limited purpose of entry of a corrected judgment.

The petitioner, Ronnie Weddle, appeals the dismissal by the Madison County Circuit Court of his petitions for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in connection with a previously negotiated plea agreement that disposed of two narcotics-related offenses. Upon review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The appellant filed an ex parte petition for name change, but failed to pay a portion of the filing fee (20%). The petition was dismissed. We affirm.

Plaintiffs' action for damages against defendant was dismissed by summary judgment on grounds that "fringe benefits" provided by defendant was plaintiff's exclusive remedy. We vacate the summary judgment.

The petitioner, Kenny Lynn Evans, appeals the dismissal by the Dyer County Circuit Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Following the death of their premature daughter, the mother and father filed a medical malpractice
lawsuit against several defendants, including the mother’s treating physician. The trial court granted the doctor’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm since our supreme court has expressly stated that Tennessee does not recognize a cause of action for loss of chance.
 

The Appellant, Shamain Johnson, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Johnson collaterally challenges his convictions for class B felony possession of cocaine and two counts of sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, class E felonies. In support of his arguments, Johnson contends that: (1) his community corrections sentences, resulting from these convictions, were not statutorily authorized; (2) his plea agreement, with regard to his convictions for sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, "constitutes a plea to a non-existent offense and is therefore void;" and (3) his guilty pleas to the offenses were not knowingly or voluntarily entered. After review, we affirm the dismissal.

The Trial Court’s classification, evaluation and division of marital property was appealed by the
husband. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Appellant, Stacy Dewayne Ramsey, filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction for first degree murder and sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The petition was timely filed. Approximately two months after the petition was filed, the post-conviction court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition without a hearing. Appellant has appealed from this order, and the State concedes that the matter should be reversed and remanded for proceedings in accordance with Post-Conviction Procedure Act. We agree and accordingly, reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for proceedings in accordance with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

The appellant, Ralph E. Scates, pled guilty to two counts of theft, attempted misdemeanor theft, and simple possession of marijuana. He was placed on unsupervised probation for eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days. In January of 2004, the appellant filed a petition to expunge and seal records in both the cases in which he pled guilty and in previous cases, including several that had been dismissed or in which the grand jury had not returned a true bill. The trial court dismissed the petition. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s dismissal of the petition. Because the trial court properly denied the petition for expungement as to the cases which resulted in convictions, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment. Because the trial court improperly denied expungement of the records relating to cases which were dismissed or where a no true bill was returned by the grand jury, we remand the case to the trial court for expungement of those records. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court.

Convicted of five counts of selling marijuana, the defendant, Linda H. Overholt, appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the prosecutor's trial conduct, various evidentiary rulings of the trial court, the denial of judicial diversion, and the trial court's sentencing determinations. Because the record supports the judgments of the trial court, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

This is a divorce action. The trial court designated Wife as the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and awarded Husband visitation. It also awarded wife alimony of $415 per month for 16 years. Husband appeals. We affirm designation of Wife as the primary residential
parent and the award of visitation to Husband. We modify the alimony award to an award of rehabilitative alimony of $415 per month for a period of five years.

We granted this appeal to determine whether the doctrine of parental immunity bars recovery when a son is injured at his father’s place of employment. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in creating a bright-line rule prohibiting the application of the doctrine of parental immunity when the injury resulted from employment-related activities. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we hold that the motion for summary judgment was improperly granted by the trial court. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this respect and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(3) motion by which he sought to be relieved from a final judgment that dismissed his complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff argues that the order dismissing his action was "void" because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss his action. We affirm.

This is a petition for certiorari seeking review of the department’s disciplinary proceedings. The
petitioner, a prisoner, was disciplined for abuse of his telephone privileges. He appealed the
disciplinary charges against him through the administrative process, with no success. He then filed the petition for certiorari in the trial court below, seeking review of the adverse administrative
decisions against him. The trial court dismissed the petition for certiorari, because it was not verified and it did not allege that it was the first application for the writ as required under T.C.A. § 27-8-106. The petitioner now appeals that decision. We affirm.
 

The trial court found that Defendant, Frank D. Grundy, violated the terms of his eight-year community corrections sentence. It ordered him to serve one year "day for day" in the county jail before serving the remainder of his community corrections sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court's imposition of "day for day" sentencing was improper. We conclude the trial court imposed an illegal sentence and remand for entry of an appropriate amended order.

The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court imposed a sentence which was illegal and void because it was ex post facto; that trial counsel was ineffective; and that his pleas of guilty were not voluntary and knowing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition.

This appeal arises out of a claim filed against Decedent’s estate by the Bureau of TennCare.
Decedent’s estate filed an exception to the claim arguing that such claim was barred because
Decedent was not provided with notice of the State of Tennessee’s recovery provisions as required by section 71-5-118(l) of the Tennessee Code. The trial court found that the Bureau of TennCare’s claim was barred on the basis that no written notice of the State’s recovery provisions was provided to Decedent or his family members. The Bureau of TennCare brought the instant appeal to this Court, and, for the following reasons, we reverse.
 

The defendant, Detrick Cole, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder. The jury imposed a sentence of death upon finding that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been previously convicted of “one (1) or more felonies, other than the present charge, whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person,” and that this aggravating circumstance outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The case was docketed in this Court. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(1). After considering the briefs and the record, this Court entered an order requesting that the parties address at oral argument the following four issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the trial court required the defendant to submit to fingerprinting in the presence of the jury; (3) whether, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), the jury rather than the judge must determine whether the statutory elements of prior convictions used to support the (i)(2)aggravating circumstance involve the use of violence to the person; and (4) whether the factors for mandatory review in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (c)(1) require reversal of the sentence of death. After carefully and thoroughly considering the issues in light of the record and the relevant authority, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

This case involves the timeliness of an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court. The plaintiff utility company sued the defendant building owner in General Sessions Court for past due utility payments. On July 28, 2003, the General Sessions Court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On August 1, 2003, the defendant filed a petition to rehear, seeking to have the judgment set aside. On August 6, 2003, the General Sessions Court denied the petition to rehear. On August 18, 2003, the defendant filed a notice of appeal for a de novo review in Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was not filed within ten days of the final General Sessions judgment entered on July 28, 2003. The defendant now appeals that decision, arguing that the ten-day time limitation was tolled by his General Sessions petition to rehear. We affirm, concluding that the time limitation for filing an appeal to Circuit Court is not tolled by a petition to rehear filed in General Sessions, because no statute grants the General Sessions Court authority to hear such a petition to rehear.
 

The Petitioner, Darron Clayton, appeals 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's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because Petitioner has failed to show either that his sentence has expired or that the trial court was without jurisdiction, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant, Michael Edward Thomason, was convicted by a Cheatham County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In a timely appeal to this court, he argues that the trial court erred in its instructions on self-defense; the evidence was insufficient to show a premeditated murder; and the prosecutor made an improper comment in his closing arguments to the jury. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case presents an appeal to this Court after remand by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The appellant, Shawn Rafael Bough, was convicted by a Knox County Jury of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The original opinion of this Court in this matter was released on January 12, 2004, and the appellant filed an application for permission to appeal. See State v. Shawn Rafael Bough, No. E2002-00717-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 50798 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Jan. 12, 2004), affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by State v. Bough, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2004 WL 2481367. The supreme court granted the permission to appeal on May 24, 2004. In our original opinion, we determined that (1) because the appellant's first motion for new trial was not timely filed in regards to the felony murder conviction and an untimely notice of appeal resulted, the appellant waived all issues except for sufficiency of the evidence in regards to the felony murder conviction; (2) because the appellant's amended motion for new trial and second amended motion for new trial were likewise deemed untimely by this Court, the only other issues remaining were those raised in the initial motion for new trial that relate to the conviction for especially aggravated robbery. As a result of the procedural determinations, we addressed the following issues in regards to the conviction for especially aggravated robbery on direct appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to comment on the appellant's failure to produce a witness; (2) whether the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for especially aggravated robbery; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the corroboration of accomplice testimony and out-of-court confessions. As a result, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. Further, we could find no error requiring reversal of the judgments of the trial court. The supreme court determined on appeal that the original motion for new trial, as well as the two amended motions for new trial, were timely filed as to both convictions, effectively affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case to this Court for consideration of the issues that were pretermitted by our procedural rulings in the original opinion. See State v. Bough, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2004 WL 2481367 (Tenn. 2004). The following issues were not addressed by this Court due to our determination that the motion for new trial was untimely as to the appellant's felony-murder conviction and thus must be addressed on remand: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to comment on the appellant's failure to produce a witness; and (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the corroboration of accomplice testimony and out-of-court confessions. The following issues were pretermitted on direct appeal by our conclusion that the amended motion for new trial was untimely: (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting the 911 tape of the victim; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing jurors to take notes and ordered the notes to be destroyed prior to deliberation; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to exhibit the appellant and the co-defendant to the jury shortly before the 911 tape was played; (4) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to infer criminal conduct of the appellant due to his association with known criminals and drug dealers. After consideration of these remaining issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case presents the interpretation of a transfer restriction clause in an LLC operating agreement.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment requesting a declaration that the defendant, by negotiating for the sale of its interest in the LLC and granting a third-party buyer an option to purchase defendant’s interest, had triggered the plaintiffs’ preemptive purchase rights under the operating agreement. The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that the transfer restriction clause in the operating agreement was triggered only by written notice of the intent to sell, which was never given. The trial court found that, under the language of the operating agreement, the plaintiffs’ preemptive purchase rights were triggered by the“desire or wish” of the selling member to transfer its interest and that the defendant had the desire or wish to transfer its membership interest in the LLC. The defendant appeals. We affirm.