APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Nathaniel Maclin, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of sexual battery by an authority figure, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Hospital filed an action against TennCare managed care organization (“MCO”) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment when MCO refused to pay Hospital’s standard charges for emergencyservices and follow-up care. Hospital was notpart of MCO’s “provider network” under the TennCare regulations and therefore was “non-contract” provider. MCO alleged Hospital was required to accept as payment the rate TennCare specified in its regulations. MCO filed motion for summary judgment, and the trial court dismissed the portion of the complaint to which the TennCare regulations may apply due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court determined the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”) divested it of jurisdiction because Hospital did not first seek a declaratory order from the Bureau of TennCare regarding the applicability of its regulations to Hospital’s dispute with MCO. Hospital appealed the dismissal of its claims, and we reverse. Because Hospital is not challenging applicabilityor validityof TennCare regulations,UAPA does not divest trial court of jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Kenneth L. Peachman, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2007 Montgomery County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of second degree murder and solicitation of first degree murder, claiming that the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel rendered his guilty pleas unknowing and involuntary.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. 

An employee suffered a work-related injury to his back. The employer acknowledged that the injury was compensable but disputed the extent of permanent partial impairment and the reasonableness of the employee’s decision to take early retirement. The trial court awarded the employee 28% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, and the employer
appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing to cap the award at one-and-one-half times the anatomical impairment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d). The employee also appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously concluded that he was not permanently and totally disabled. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the employee is permanently and partially disabled. We reverse, however, the trial court’s determination that the statutory cap of one-and-one-half times the anatomical impairment rating does not apply and remand to the trial court for a determination of the employee’s vocational disability consistent with this opinion.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Anthony Henvey aka Anthony Hervey, of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony, and he received an effective sixteen-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the attempted murder conviction and that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on self-defense. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the self-defense instruction was erroneous but that the error was harmless. Therefore, the appellant’s convictions are affirmed.

Petitioner, Antonio J. Parker, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged four grounds for relief: (1) that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary; (2) he was denied the right to present witnesses on his behalf; (3) his juvenile transfer hearing was unconstitutional; and (4) his confession was unconstitutional. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development hired plaintiff in 2007 as an executive service appointment. The Department terminated his employment in 2011. In August 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his due process rights. The trial court found that the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions had expired. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Jimmie Martin, of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; that the trial court erred by allowing State witnesses to testify about his prior bad acts in violation of Rule 404(b), Tennessee Rules of Evidence; and that the trial court erred by ruling that statements made by the victim were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by ruling that the victim statements to a police officer qualified as excited utterances. However, we conclude that the error was harmless and affirm the appellant’s conviction.

A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Andres Andres Francisco, of one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery and three counts of rape of a child. Following his convictions, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his convictions; that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress DNA evidence and his statement to police; and that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development hired plaintiff in 2007 as an executive service appointment. The Department terminated his employment in 2011. He petitioned for a declaratory order stating that his position was actually career service and, therefore, he was entitled to notice and a hearing pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. The order was denied. He filed a chancerycourt petition for declaratoryand injunctive relief. The trial court held that his job classification was not reviewable under the facts of this case. He appealed. We affirm.

Appellant, Emmanuel Bibb Houston, stands convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery.  The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-three years.  On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping and that his sentence was excessive.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
 

A Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility determined that an attorney had violated multiple disciplinary rules and imposed a public censure. The attorney appealed, and the trial court affirmed the Hearing Panel’s decision. On appeal to this Court, the attorney raises a number of issues, including a facial constitutional challenge to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9. After reviewing the evidence and the applicable law, we reject the attorney’s constitutional challenge to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, and we conclude that his other issues are without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Pamela Jamison, of theft of property valued more than $1,000 but less than $10,000 and identity theft, Class D felonies, and she received an effective four-year sentence to be served as six months in confinement and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, the case is remanded to the trial court for the correction of a clerical error on the judgment for identity theft.

Petitioner, Chester L. Wallace, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that his sentence had expired before an outstanding probation violation warrant was executed and served upon him. Therefore, he claims that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke his probation and impose the sentence. Petitioner also argues that the trial court erroneously failed to award him thirty months of pretrial jail credit from his arrest in 2006 to his guilty plea in 2008. He further asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to appoint “new counsel” to represent him at the probation revocation hearing and that the trial court should have appointed counsel for Petitioner’s habeas corpus proceedings. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in the habeas corpus proceedings.

David Hoke Ware (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of burglary of an automobile, twelve counts of identity theft, twelve counts of fraudulent use of a debit or credit card, and two counts of theft over $500. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of two years, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered this sentence to be served in incarceration and ordered the Defendant to pay restitution of $1,093.84. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying probation or other alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On November 5, 2010, Petitioner, Domonic Lacy, pleaded guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary. The offenses occurred when Petitioner was a juvenile and he had been transferred from juvenile court to criminal court. He received an agreed total effective sentence of twelve (12) years. No appeal was made from the judgments and they became final thirty days after they were entered on November 5, 2010. More than a year after the judgments became final, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on March 26, 2013. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed within the one-year statute of limitations, and Petitioner has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

The defendant, Michael McKissack, was found guilty by a jury of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and facilitation of attempted carjacking. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence recovered pursuant to a stop of the vehicle he was riding in, asserting that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The trial court denied the motion to suppress.  The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery, ten years for the aggravated robbery, and four years for the facilitation of attempted carjacking.  The trial court ordered the defendant’s aggravated robbery and facilitation of attempted carjacking convictions to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to his especially aggravated robbery conviction.  The defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences.  After review, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper.  We affirm the judgments from the trial courtThe defendant, Michael McKissack, was found guilty by a jury of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and facilitation of attempted carjacking. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence recovered pursuant to a stop of the vehicle he was riding in, asserting that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The trial court denied the motion to suppress.  The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery, ten years for the aggravated robbery, and four years for the facilitation of attempted carjacking.  The trial court ordered the defendant’s aggravated robbery and facilitation of attempted carjacking convictions to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to his especially aggravated robbery conviction.  The defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences.  After review, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper.  We affirm the judgments from the trial courtThe defendant, Michael McKissack, was found guilty by a jury of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and facilitation of attempted carjacking. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence recovered pursuant to a stop of the vehicle he was riding in, asserting that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The trial court denied the motion to suppress.  The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery, ten years for the aggravated robbery, and four years for the facilitation of attempted carjacking.  The trial court ordered the defendant’s aggravated robbery and facilitation of attempted carjacking convictions to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to his especially aggravated robbery conviction.  The defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences.  After review, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper.  We affirm the judgments from the trial The defendant, Michael McKissack, was found guilty by a jury of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and facilitation of attempted carjacking. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence recovered pursuant to a stop of the vehicle he was riding in, asserting that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The trial court denied the motion to suppress.  The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery, ten years for the aggravated robbery, and four years for the facilitation of attempted carjacking.  The trial court ordered the defendant’s aggravated robbery and facilitation of attempted carjacking convictions to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to his especially aggravated robbery conviction.  The defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences.  After review, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper.  We affirm the judgments from the trial court

Petitioner, Craig O. Majors, was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary.  He received an effective twenty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  State v. Craig O. Majors, No. M2009-00483-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2483512, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 21, 2010). Petitioner now appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari regarding his especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted aggravated robbery convictions.  After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that petitioner does not have an appeal as of right from the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari, and we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, John Bradford Robinson, pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana, sale of marijuana, theft of property valued between $1000 and $10,000, initiation of process to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  For these convictions, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective eight-year sentence on probation.  After multiple arrests in 2012, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.The Defendant, John Bradford Robinson, pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana, sale of marijuana, theft of property valued between $1000 and $10,000, initiation of process to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  For these convictions, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective eight-year sentence on probation.  After multiple arrests in 2012, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.The Defendant, John Bradford Robinson, pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana, sale of marijuana, theft of property valued between $1000 and $10,000, initiation of process to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  For these convictions, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective eight-year sentence on probation.  After multiple arrests in 2012, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.The Defendant, John Bradford Robinson, pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana, sale of marijuana, theft of property valued between $1000 and $10,000, initiation of process to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  For these convictions, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective eight-year sentence on probation.  After multiple arrests in 2012, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.The Defendant, John Bradford Robinson, pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana, sale of marijuana, theft of property valued between $1000 and $10,000, initiation of process to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  For these convictions, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective eight-year sentence on probation.  After multiple arrests in 2012, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. The Defendant, John Bradford Robinson, pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana, sale of marijuana, theft of property valued between $1000 and $10,000, initiation of process to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  For these convictions, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective eight-year sentence on probation.  After multiple arrests in 2012, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

The petitioner, Brooke Lee Whitaker, pleaded guilty to rape and received a twelve-year sentence.  In her petition for post-conviction relief she alleges that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, and that trial counsel had a conflict of interest as the former sheriff of Bedford County that prejudiced his representation of the petitioner.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Plaintiff/Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and affirming the final accounting of a trust in this conservatorship action. We affirm.
 

Appellant, Cedric Wayne Watkins, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by limiting the testimony of a defense witness. Following our review, we affirm appellant’s judgment but remand to the trial court to consider whether the judgment requires correction of a clerical error.

Appellant, James Edward Brown, entered guilty pleas without recommended sentences to one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000 and two counts of being a felon in possession of a handgun.  Appellant was on probation for kidnapping, aggravated assault, and aggravated burglary when he committed the theft offense and was released on bond from the theft case when he committed the weapons offenses.  He subsequently agreed that his probation should be revoked.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence for the theft of property conviction, to be served consecutively to the seven-year sentence for the probation revocation.  The trial court also ordered the two six-year sentences for being a felon in possession of a handgun to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the other two sentences.  He now appeals the alignment of his sentences.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The surviving husband who was excluded from his wife’s will filed a petition for elective-share, year’s support, exempt property, and homestead. The executors of her estate opposed the petition claiming the marriage was void ab initio because it was procured by fraud and misrepresentations, specifically alleging that he lied on the marriage license about his age and number of prior marriages. Alternatively, if he is the surviving spouse, they contend he is equitably estopped to assert such claims for the same underlying reasons. The trial court summarilydismissed the petition finding “(1) the marriage between [Plaintiff] and the Decedent was void ab initio due to the fraud perpetrated by [Plaintiff] in connection with false information supplied by him on the application for the parties’ marriage license; and (2) equitably estopped as a matter of law.” Based on these findings the trial court dismissed all claims. We have determined the marriage was not void ab initio; whether the marriage was voidable is now moot for any right to avoid the marriage abated upon the wife’s death. As for equitable estoppel, we have determined that summary judgment was inappropriate because essential facts are either disputed or not in the record, including whether the decedent relied on the misrepresentations to marry him. Accordingly, we reverse the award of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

The petitioner, David Hearing, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking relief from his two convictions of felony murder and the accompanying life sentences. The coram nobis court denied relief, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.