APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Robert E. Allen, pled guilty to aggravated assault, three counts of domestic assault, vandalism, evading arrest, public intoxication and reckless burning. The trial court sentenced him to five years in prison for the aggravated assault and eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the other charges, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Petitioner did not perfect an appeal of his sentence, but petitioned for post-conviction relief on the grounds that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing on the post-conviction petition, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel for the following reasons: (1) trial counsel failed to properly advise him as to the potential sentences for all the charges covered in the plea agreement; and (2) trial counsel failed to advise him of his right to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial court. Finding no error, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition.

A Fayette County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Jerome Taylor, of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of more than 0.5 ounces of marijuana with intent to deliver, and felony possession of a handgun. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eighteen years for cocaine possession, three years for marijuana possession, and three years for felony possession of a handgun. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) that insufficient evidence exists in the record to support his convictions; and (2) that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the Appellant, Samuel Timothy Collins, against the
Appellee, NBC Bank, for damages he allegedly incurred as a consequence of his erroneous arrest and incarceration by the Knox County Sheriff’s Department. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the Defendant in a medical malpractice action. The trial court awarded summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. We affirm.
 

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I do so because I believe the record before us
reflects undisputed material facts that negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action, i.e., the element of “proximate causation” of the appellant’s damages. I do agree with the appellant that there remains a genuine issue of material fact for the trier of fact as to the element of “cause in fact.” I believe a jury could reasonably find that there is a “cause and effect relationship between the defendant’s tortious conduct and the plaintiff’s injury or loss.” White v. Lawrence, 975 S.W. 2d 525, 529 (Tenn. 1998). As the Supreme Court has pointed out, “cause in fact” addresses the “‘but for’ consequences of an act.” Id. However, in my judgment, the conduct of the Sheriff’s Office, once the deputies arrived at the bank and thereafter took the appellant into custody, conclusively militates against a finding of proximate causation tying the bank’s conduct to the appellant’s damages.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a ground of relief entitling him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal is from a will contest. The trial court entered judgment according to the terms of a settlement agreement between the parties. Appellants contend they withdrew their agreement to the settlement before approval of the agreement by the trial court. They accordingly submit the agreement is not enforceable. We affirm judgment of the trial court enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement.

This is an employment tax case. The State of Tennessee appeals the determination of the Tennessee Claims Commission that Crew One Productions is not liable for Tennessee employment tax by virtue of a federal safe harbor provision known as section 530. We reverse, holding Tennessee is not bound by the federal safe harbor provision.

Father filed a petition for an initial determination of custody against the Mother. Father alleged that he was the fit and proper person for the custody of the child. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the juvenile court entered a judgment and permanent parenting plan which found that the Mother was more comparatively fit to continue serving as the primary residential caregiver. Father appeals the trial court’s judgment. We affirm.
 

We granted permission to appeal in this case to consider whether the Sixth Amendment entitles the defendant to participate, through counsel, in the determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to seize a sample of the defendant's blood. Because we find that the defendant has no such entitlement, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Mark Edward Igou ("Husband") sued Dinah Carol Igou ("Wife) for a divorce. After trial, the Trial Court awarded Wife alimony only to the extent of requiring Husband to "pay all cost of tuition, books, fees, and other charges relating to [Wife's] obtaining a master's degree whether it's in education or any other related field which will increase her compensation" with the restrictions that Wife must complete the course of study within five years from the entry of the Trial Court's order and that Wife must achieve passing grades. Wife appeals the Trial Court's judgment as to alimony and attorney fees. We affirm.

The Petitioner was discharged from her executive position as Director of the Lenoir City Housing Authority for misconduct connected with her employment. The Authority was awarded McKinney Act funds, an audit of which revealed that $156,000.00 of these funds were inappropriately expended, which led to the discharge of the Petitioner.

The Plaintiff was an at-will employee of the Defendant when he was terminated for an asserted cause. In this action he alleges that he was wrongfully terminated because the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Handbook afforded him a contractual right of peer review. The motion of the Defendants for summary judgment was granted upon a finding that the Handbook was not an employment contract. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a medical malpractice action. The trial court awarded Defendant Luis A.
Fiallo, M.D., summary judgment based on the statute of limitations and statute of repose. We
affirm.
 

The defendant pled guilty to two counts of attempted second degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed two consecutive ten-year sentences. The defendant contends on appeal the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a boundary-line case. The Defendant's survey evidence was excluded, and reputation evidence offered by the Plaintiff as to the common boundary line was admitted. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves a question of valuation of the shares of a withdrawing shareholder from a professional corporation. We reverse the trial court's determination that the shares had no value and hold that the valuation should have been made as of the date of withdrawal. We also hold that the withdrawing shareholder may recover the value of his shares from the sole remaining shareholder who removed the corporation's assets after the notice of withdrawal.

The petitioner, Donald W. Rhea, Jr., pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to robbery and attempted robbery and received a nine-year sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for habeas corpus relief in the Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging that his sentence was illegal and that the indictments underlying his conviction were fatally defective. The trial court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action based on a personal guaranty agreement, the Trial Court determined there were no disputed issues of material fact and awarded summary judgment on the agreement. Defendant has appealed. We affirm.

In a declaratory judgment action by the insurance company, the Trial Court held insured was entitled to recover under the policy and awarded prejudgment interest and imposed bad faith penalty. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The Appellants, Michael Dwight Stewart and James Henry Brown, appeal the sentencing decisions of the Davidson County Criminal Court. Stewart pled guilty to aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping and received an effective twelve-year sentence. Brown pled guilty to aggravated rape and received a twenty-four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this consolidated appeal, Stewart and Brown raise the single issue of whether the sentences imposed were excessive. After review of the record, the sentencing decisions are affirmed.

The Trial Court in this divorce action awarded child support for the two children of the parties and attorney's fees to the mother. The father appeals. We affirm, as modified.

A mediated agreement provided that Husband would sell his one-half interest in Pigeon Forge property to Wife for $500,000.00, but if the purchase price was not paid in one year, the property would be sold at auction and the net proceeds divided. The property was sold at auction for $244,429.00, net. Wife claims this amount plus $255,271.00 and the trial court agreed.

A jury convicted the defendant of four counts of child rape and four counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years on each of the child rape convictions and twelve years on each of the aggravated sexual battery convictions, with two of the child rape sentences to run consecutively and all other sentences to run concurrently, for an effective sentence of fifty years. On direct appeal, this Court reversed and dismissed three of the convictions for child rape. We remanded the case for a determination of whether the remaining sentences should run consecutively. Following a re-sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered two of the aggravated sexual battery sentences and the child rape sentence to run consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty-nine years. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. We conclude that the record supports the grounds for consecutive sentencing under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(5), and the sentence is "justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offenses" and is "no greater than that deserved for the offenses committed."

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Jimmy W. Rogers, was convicted of aggravated assault. In this direct appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow him and a co-defendant to compare jury strikes; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting a video tape and an audio tape into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying him discovery of the victim's medical records; (4) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant him a continuance; (5) whether the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of the victim; (6) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial based on improper comments by the prosecutor during closing argument; (7) whether the trial court erred in its jury instruction; (8) whether the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant; and (9) whether the trial court erred by refusing to suspend the Defendant's sentence pending the appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.