APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Subcontractor B hired subcontractor A to install bathrooms in fulfillment of subcontractor B’s contracts with general contractors. After it was terminated by subcontractor B, subcontractor A sued to recover payments owed for work subcontractor A completed before termination. Subcontractor B filed a counterclaim for damages and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court dismissed subcontractor B’s counterclaim and found that subcontractor A was entitled to quantum meruit recovery. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Joann G. Rosa, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis regarding her conviction for first degree murder, for which she is serving a life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial judge who presided over her jury trial pleaded guilty to official misconduct, that the judge’s misconduct was newly discovered evidence entitling her to a new trial, that the judge’s misconduct created structural error entitling her to a new trial, and that the trial judge who denied coram nobis relief had a conflict of interest because she was mentioned in the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) report regarding the misconduct allegation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Gregory A. Hedges, filed in the Morgan County Criminal Court a habeas corpus petition, seeking relief from his convictions of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated kidnapping. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The pro se appellant, Adrian Brown, appeals as of right from the McMinn County Circuit Court’s order denying his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct clerical error. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion to affirm by memorandum opinion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the McMinn County Circuit Court.

The appellant, David Eugene Breezee, was convicted by Benton County Circuit Court juries of two counts of rape of a child and two counts of incest. On appeal, the appellant contends that his effective thirty-two-year sentence is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Marcus Frazier Thompson, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of five counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies. See T.C.A. § 39-13-402 (2010). He was sentenced as a career offender to ninety years to be served at sixty percent. On appeal he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) the State improperly exercised a peremptory challenge on the basis of a prospective juror’s race, (3) a witness’s testimony should have been excluded due to a violation of the rule of sequestration, and (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of ammunition found during a search of the Defendant’s apartment. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial court awarded an employee 85% permanent partial disability to both ears. The employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the employee’s claim was not barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(b). We affirm the trial court’s determination that the employee’s claim was timely filed.

The petitioner, Broderick Joseph Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This appeal concerns the application of a statutory amendment to a contract the plaintiff had with the city. The plaintiff claims the amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55- 8-198, effective July 1, 2011, violates article I, section 20 of the Tennessee Constitution. In the alternative, the plaintiff argues that the amendment does not apply to existing contracts. The trial court concluded that the retroactive application of the amendment was not a constitutional violation. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Appellant, Xavion Lyndon Underwood, was convicted of aggravated robbery, for which he received a ten-year sentence. He appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in sentencing him. Upon our review, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, David Enrique Leon, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery convictions, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, William Richard Hicks, alias Billy Richard Hicks, appeals from his convictions for various alcohol- and driving-related offenses, which we will detail, the most serious of which were DUI, tenth offense, and violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender (“HMVO”) statute. He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to six years for each of these convictions, with the HMVO sentences to be served consecutively and the DUI and misdemeanor convictions to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of eighteen years. From these sentences he appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive and that the court erred in ordering they be served consecutively. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Case No. 91142, Count 5, to reflect the length of the defendant’s sentence as eleven months, twenty-nine days, which was omitted.

The Defendant, Justin Gibson, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence, first offense. He agreed to a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, all of which was suspended after seven days’ incarceration. As a condition of his guilty plea, the Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the warrantless search of his home as not justified by either consent or exigent circumstances. After a thorough review of the applicable law, we conclude that the officer’s entry into the Defendant’s home was supported by neither exigent circumstances nor as a part of the community caretaker function; therefore, the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge against the Defendant.

The petitioner, Jarrett Inman, pled guilty in the Roane County Criminal Court to rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to seventeen years at 100% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his petition for writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence of the victim’s recantation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Yovonda Sherith Chambers, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This is a health care liability action wherein the trial by jury resulted in a judgment for the Defendant, Dr. Timothy Renfree. Plaintiffs, Larry and Dinnie Burchfield, filed this lawsuit against Dr. Renfree alleging that he negligently performed surgery on Mr. Burchfield’s right arm and caused nerve damage. After the jury returned its verdict in favor of Dr. Renfree, the Burchfields filed post-trial motions seeking relief from the judgment and alleging numerous errors in the administration of the trial. The trial court denied the post-trial motions and affirmed the jury’s verdict as thirteenth juror. The Burchfields appealed. We vacate the jury’s verdict, finding reversible error in the administration of the trial, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Anthony Whited, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he presented a colorable claim for relief and that he should, therefore, have been afforded the assistance of post-conviction counsel and an evidentiary hearing. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for the appointment of post-conviction counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

The Petitioner, Nicholas Overbay, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief for his conviction for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, William Lanier, of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant asserts: (1) that he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Anthony Mullins to testify as a blood spatter expert; (4) that the trial court erred in admitting blood spatter evidence that was insufficiently authenticated; (5) that the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of witnesses; (6) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its questioning of witnesses and closing argument; and (7) that the cumulative effect of the errors warrants a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James Earl Evans (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced to ten years’ probation. Upon the filing of a probation revocation warrant, the Defendant was taken into custody, and a revocation hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence of ten years’ incarceration. The Defendant has appealed the trial court’s ruling, asserting that the trial court erred in sentencing him to his original sentence in confinement. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Jeremy Keeton, appeals as of right from the Wayne County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to secure the appearance of several witnesses at his trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In May of 2011, the General Assembly enacted a law providing, with certain exceptions, that all citizens who appear in person to vote must present photographic proof of their identity. The statute authorized a variety of acceptable forms of identification, one of which was a valid photographic identification card issued by an entity of the State of Tennessee. Prior to the August 2012 primary election, the City of Memphis Public Library issued photographic identification cards to its patrons. When two Shelby County residents attempted to vote in the primary using photographic library cards as means of identification, however, election officials declined to accept the cards as the requisite proof. The two residents and the City of Memphis filed a declaratory judgment action against the Secretary of State, the State Coordinator of Elections, and the Attorney General, arguing that the photographic identification requirement violated constitutional protections and that the City of Memphis qualified as an entity of the state authorized to issue valid photographic identification cards through its public library. The trial court denied relief on all counts, ruling first that the plaintiffs lacked standing and holding in the alternative that the photographic identification requirement did not violate the state constitution and that the City of Memphis did not qualify as an entity of the state. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that each plaintiff had standing to sue and that photographic identification cards issued by a municipal library complied with the statute for voting purposes, but also concluding that the photographic identification requirement did not violate constitutional principles. Following the grant of an application for permission to appeal, briefing, and oral argument, the General Assembly enacted amendments to the statute which, among other things, precluded the use of photographic identification cards issued by municipalities or their libraries for voting purposes. In light of these recent amendments, we hold that each issue in this appeal that pertains to the validity of the Memphis Public Library cards as photographic identification is now moot. We further hold that the City of Memphis lacks standing, and, although the two residents of Shelby County have standing to file a declaratory judgment action, the photographic identification requirement, both on its face and as applied in this instance, meets constitutional scrutiny. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the issue of constitutionality.

The petitioner, Clarence Dewayne Hayes, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the misconduct of the prosecutor. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

In 2011, the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tennessee’s voting procedures to provide for the use of photographic identification in elections. The General Assembly amended these procedures in 20122 and again in 2013.3 I concur with the Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of these procedures as they stood in 2012. I write separately, however, to address the threshold matter of the standard of review that should be used to address the constitutionality of these amendments.

Defendant, Dustin Marshall Goforth, was serving a suspended eight-year sentence on supervised probation. Violation of probation warrants were filed, and his suspended sentence was revoked after an evidentiary hearing. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served by incarceration in the Department of Correction. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion for the judge to recuse himself in this case prior to the evidentiary hearing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.