APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

While the defendant spouses were separated and living in separate counties, the defendant driver fatally shot himself during a police pursuit while driving a Toyota 4Runner vehicle which was to be awarded to him in the defendants’ pending divorce. Said vehicle struck the plaintiff, allegedly causing serious injuries. The plaintiff sued the defendant driver alleging negligence, and he sued the defendant spouse on claims of imputed negligence. Much later, the plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to assert a negligent entrustment claim against the defendant spouse. Because the plaintiff failed to have appointed, to substitute, and to serve an administrator ad litem prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the trial court dismissed the negligence claims against the deceased defendant driver and the imputed negligence claims against the defendant spouse. It implicitly denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend. We affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the claims against the deceased defendant driver and its dismissal of the imputed negligence claims against the defendant spouse; however, we remand for consideration of the request to add a negligent entrustment claim against the defendant spouse and for express findings.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Derrick Johnson, of first degree murder and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the first degree murder conviction, with a consecutive six-year sentence for the aggravated assault conviction, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court. State v. Derrick Johnson, No. W2008-02070-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3623619, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Sept. 20, 2010) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiffs sought the return of property that had been donated to the Karns Volunteer Fire Department (“Fire Department”). Plaintiffs alleged that a reversionary clause in the warranty deed had been triggered when Fire Department began paying firefighters and charging subscription fees for its services. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court determined that the reversionary clause had not been triggered and granted Fire Department’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

In this action, the trial court granted Wife a divorce on fault-based grounds against Husband and awarded $1,500.00 monthly in transitional alimony to Wife for a period of thirty-six months. Husband appeals. Determining the amount of alimony to be beyond Husband’s ability to pay, we modify the transitional alimony award to $1,000.00 monthly to Wife for thirty-six months. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

The petitioner, Anita Kay Broughton, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and received a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, she contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, she contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to pursue a defense of diminished capacity despite ample proof that the petitioner suffered from a mental condition. She also challenges the accuracy of the post-conviction court’s order denying relief. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

A Putnam County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Lewis, of second degree murder, and the trial court imposed a fifteen-year prison sentence.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to sequester the jury; (3) the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the body of the deceased; and (4) the trial court erred by allowing certain witness testimony.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Father appeals the trial court’s holding that termination of his parental rights to two children was in the best interest of the children. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the judgment of the trial court. I write separately to express the reasons for my concurrence. Since the proposed amendment adding the Wilkinson defendants was filed well beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations, an allowance of the amendment would be futile unless it relates back, under the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03 (1995), to the date of filing of the original complaint against the Glazer defendants. It is clear under Rule 15.03 that we are dealing in this case with an amendment “changing the party . . . against whom a claim is asserted.” Id. The new parties – the Wilkinson defendants – are totally different entities from the Glazer defendants. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff wants to change parties.

An apprentice lineman agreed to help a neighbor by climbing a utility pole on the neighbor’s land and disconnecting an electrical wire at the top. After he disconnected the wire, the pole fell over, causing the lineman himself to fall and to suffer severe injuries. He filed a negligence complaint, alleging that the neighbor had not set the pole deeply enough into the ground, thereby rendering it unreasonably dangerous. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that because of the plaintiff’s expertise in electrical matters, it was his duty alone to make sure the pole was safe before climbing it. We reverse.

The Petitioner, Samuel Ryan Hawkins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his conviction for aggravated child abuse. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to obtain an expert witness to rebut the State’s theory of shaken baby syndrome.  Following our review, we affirm the denial of relief.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Renitra Harlen, of two counts of theft of property valued at more than $1,000.00.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to concurrent terms of two years, to be served on probation following the service of fourteen days in confinement.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce a handwritten list of stolen items prepared by store employees immediately after the shoplifting incident occurred; (2) the State failed to disclose a victim questionnaire in violation of the rules of discovery; (3) the trial court erred by failing to merge the two theft convictions; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions.  After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we remand to the trial court for the entry of modified judgments reflecting the merger of the Defendant’s two convictions and affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Michael T. Gibbs, Jr. (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Hamilton County Criminal Court, claiming that his sentences had expired. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner’s notice of appeal is untimely. Moreover, the Petitioner offers no reasons why the interests of justice would support a waiver of the filing deadline. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petitioner’s appeal.

The Petitioner, Bruce Elliot, challenges the post-conviction court’s finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and its denial of post-conviction relief from his jury convictions for conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, conspiracy to possess 300 grams or more of cocaine, possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine, all Class A felonies; money laundering, a Class B felony; possession of over one-half ounce of marijuana and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, both Class E felonies.  The Petitioner contends that his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress the wiretaps on his telephone, which provided the basis for all evidence subsequently obtained against him, was deficient and that he was prejudiced by this deficiency.  Upon consideration of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a boundary line dispute involving the placement of a new fence and the location of a corner. The suit involves a small triangular piece of property approximately two-tenths of an acre out of two adjoining 40-acre tracts owned by the parties. The value of the land in dispute is approximately $200. The trial court found the boundary line runs along a tree line essentially synonymous with the agreed upon old fence line as indicated on the Lawson survey. The court then located the corner as a car axle in the southwest corner of the plaintiff and the southeast corner of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm the findings of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Cory Lee Jackson, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000.  At trial, the jury convicted Jackson of the lesser included offense of theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony.  See T.C.A. § 39-14-103(a), -105(a)(3).  The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to six years in confinement.  On appeal, Jackson argues:  (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his missed court dates on unrelated charges; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony regarding Budget’s loss regarding the rental vehicle; and (4) his sentence was excessive.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The Petitioner, Aldrick Lillard, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.  On appeal, the Petitioner argues that both his trial attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel in their failure to raise in the motion for new trial or on direct appeal the trial court’s denial of the Petitioner’s motion for mistrial.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Plaintiff/Appellant appeals the trial court’s division of property and award of alimony in this divorce action. We affirm.

Following a traffic stop premised on a possible violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-107 (the window tint statute), appellees were charged with several drug offenses.  Appellee Shaun Anthony Davidson was indicted for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free zone.  Appellee Deedra Lynette Kizer was indicted for possession or casual exchange of hydrocodone.  Both appellees were indicted for possession or casual exchange of marijuana.  The trial court granted the appellees’ motion to suppress evidence, ruling that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-107(c) was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.  As a result, the case was dismissed.  The State now appeals, arguing that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-107(c) is constitutional.  We reverse the ruling of the trial court, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

Following a bench trial, the Defendant-Appellant, Charles Justin Woosley, was convicted of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor.  See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-101, -111 (2010).  He was sentenced to ninety days in the county jail, which the trial court suspended and ordered to be served on unsupervised probation.  The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Haywood County jury convicted appellant, Lymus Levar Brown, III, of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III offender to serve thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with a release eligibility of eighty-five percent. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(k)(1) (release eligibility for aggravated robbery conviction). On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence supporting his conviction was insufficient; (2) the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify despite a violation of the rule of sequestration; (3) the trial court erred by not granting him a mistrial or some other remedy for the State’s failure to provide previously requested discovery; (4) his right to a speedy trial was violated; (5) the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear that appellant was a convicted criminal; (6) the State failed to provide a sufficient chain of custody for the cellular telephone found at the crime scene; and (7) the trial court erred by considering his prior convictions during the sentencing hearing despite not having certified copies of said convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I agree that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-107(c) is not vague or overbroad, but such does not mean it is flawless.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants in California state court, alleging a number of business-related torts. After one of the defendants moved to dismiss based on a forum selection clause contained in the parties’ contract, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his California complaint and refiled his action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.  In his federal court complaint, the plaintiff invoked federal-question jurisdiction by pleading a number of federal securities law violations. In its discretion, the federal district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claims. One of the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiff’s federal securities law claims had expired. Before the federal court could dispose of the motion, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without court approval pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).  The plaintiff later filed the present action in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, pleading only three of the state-law claims that formed the basis for his two previously dismissed lawsuits. The defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the plaintiff’s second voluntary dismissal in federal court. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted the plaintiff permission to appeal. We conclude that a plaintiff’s second voluntary dismissal of supplemental state-law claims filed in federal court does not, under Tennessee law,preclude the plaintiff from later refiling an action based on the same claims in Tennessee state court. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

This is a negligence case in which Plaintiff filed suit against the wrong party but sought to amend the complaint to add Defendant once the statute of limitations had passed. Defendant objected to the amendment and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the applicable statute of limitations had passed because Rule 15.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure did not allow for the amendment of the complaint. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

More than sixty days before filing suit, the plaintiff gave written notice to the potential defendants of her healthcare liability claim against them. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) (2012) requires that a plaintiff’s pre-suit notice include a HIPAA compliant medical authorization that permits the healthcare provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from every other provider that is being sent a notice. Contrary to the statute, the plaintiff provided a non-HIPAA compliant medical authorization that only permitted the release of medical records to plaintiff’s counsel. After the plaintiff filed suit, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on noncompliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). The trial court denied the motion, ruling that plaintiff’s noncompliance was excused by extraordinary cause. We hold that the plaintiff was required to substantially comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) and failed to do so, and that her failure to comply is not excused by extraordinary cause. We dismiss the plaintiff’s case without prejudice.

Scott J. Wexler sued James Reed, Jr., and Robert Rankin in the General Sessions Court for Knox County to recover damages based on an alleged fraudulent sale of goods. The general sessions court awarded a judgment in Wexler’s favor in the amount of $2,000, the purchase price of the goods, plus costs. Defendants appealed to the trial court. After a bench trial, the court awarded a judgment in favor of Wexler, but reduced the amount to $1,025 including interest. Wexler appeals. We modify the judgment to reinstate the award of $2,000 plus costs.