APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The order from which the appellant, Jerry Burkes, seeks to appeal was entered on Monday, October 24, 2011. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Monday, November 28, 2011, the 35th day following the entry of the trial court’s order. Because the notice of appeal was not filed timely, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Joseph May (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree premeditated murder. The Petitioner contends that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. This appeal followed. Upon our careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The order from which the appellant, Randy Bernard Braswell, Sr., seeks to appeal was entered on Wednesday, April 18, 2012. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Friday, June 29, 2012, the 72nd day following the entry of the trial court’s order. Because the notice of appeal was not filed timely, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner, Leon Flannel, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted by a jury of one count of murder in the perpetration of a theft and one count of premeditated murder; the convictions were merged, and the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life. After the denial of his direct appeal, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner urges that, because he expressed his dissatisfaction with his trial counsel prior to trial, his trial counsel should have withdrawn. The trial court found no deficiency in the petitioner’s trial counsel’s performance and no resulting prejudice. After a thorough review of the petitioner’s claim, we affirm.

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights based on abandonment for the failure to visit or support. On appeal, Mother asserts the trial court erred by determining that her failure to visit or support her children was willful. We affirm.

The petitioner, Gerraldo White, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition without appointing an attorney to represent him, without holding an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised, and without allowing him an opportunity to respond to the State’s brief opposing his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner has asserted no colorable claim to relief, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Darryl Thompson, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, and was sentenced as a Range II offender to a term of forty years. On appeal, he contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly advise him of the consequences of pleading outside his range. Following careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Robin Paul Cagle (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of aggravated sexual battery, alleging that his guilty plea was constitutionally infirm and that it was entered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our careful review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Shaun Danielle Stafford, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her conviction of selling more than .5 grams of methamphetamine and resulting sentence of fifteen years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, she contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty plea was rendered involuntary by the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Mike Dwayne Rahming, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summarily dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The petitioner pled guilty to Class D felony burglary and received a two-year probated sentence in 2007. In 2011, he filed the instant petition for relief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal,hecontends that the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal resulted in a violation of his due process rights. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that the petition was timely filed or that a recognized exception to the statute of limitation applies, we find no error in the post-conviction court’s dismissal.

Douglas Emory Carlton (“the Defendant”) appeals his jury conviction for burglary. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement made to police officers. He also alleges that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction.

The Appellant filed a motion to correct a judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 in the Shelby County Criminal Court. The trial court subsequently entered an order denying the Appellant’s motion. In this appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion. Because there is no appeal as of right from the denial of a Rule 36 motion to correct a judgment, the appeal is dismissed.

This appeal arises out of a personal injury suit, wherein the plaintiff and Dewayne Duffer filed suit against a trucking company for injuries suffered in an accident and for loss of consortium as a result of the accident. Plaintiff’s employer intervened to recover worker’s compensation benefits paid to plaintiff. Soon thereafter, the trucking company discovered that plaintiff was male, had filed the action using an assumed female identity, and had lied throughout the discovery process. The trucking company filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed plaintiff’s and employer’s complaints,finding that plaintiff had committed a fraud upon the courtand thatemployerhad failed to file suitwithin the applicable statute of limitations because plaintiff’scomplaintwas rendered void ab initio. Plaintiff and employer appeal. We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint but reverse the dismissal of employer’s complaint.
 

The mother of a five year old boy alleged that the boy’s father had sexually abused him, and she petitioned the juvenile court to have the father’s visitation privileges revoked. After a long course of proceedings that included an investigation by the Department of Children’s Services, testimony by a number of mental health professionals, and a report by the guardian ad litem, the court concluded that the Mother’s allegations were unfounded, that her hostility against the father was having a detrimental effect on the child, and that it was in the child’s best interest that the father be named as the child’s primary residential parent in place of the mother. The mother raises numerous procedural issues on appeal, and she also contends that her allegations of abuse against the father were true, or at the very least that she had a good faith belief in their truth. Having carefully considered the mother’s allegations and her arguments, we affirm the trial court.
 

In this appeal, numerous beneficiaries under a will challenge the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees of $9,024.75 out of the funds of the estate to another beneficiary who is their adversary. At an earlier time, the court had entered an order setting the attorney’s fees of that beneficiary at $34,669.25 without specifying who was responsible for the payment of those fees. On the motion of that beneficiary, the court granted a new trial on the subject of attorney’s fees. When the matter came on for the “new trial,” the court announced that it would listen to argument but would not receive substantive evidence on the subject. Following that “hearing,” the court awarded the fees now before us. The court’s order does not articulate any findings with respect to whether the attorney’s services were reasonable, necessary or benefited the estate. The “challenging” beneficiaries filed a notice of appeal. We vacate the order awarding attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing and enter an order on attorney’s fees complying with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.

A Putnam County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Matthew Kinnard, charging him with one count of aggravated child abuse. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault. He received a sentence of three years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation or some other form of alternative sentence. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A grand jury indicted appellant for possession of a substance containing .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417 (a)(4), a Class A felony. Following an unsuccessful motion to suppress the evidence, appellant entered a guilty plea to possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to eight years and 270 days and placed him on probation. As a condition of the plea agreement, appellant reserved the right to certify several questions of law challenging the validity of the search that yielded the evidence against him. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This action was filed after the defendant, a life insurance company, denied payment of benefits on the grounds that the decedent/insured made material misrepresentations in her application for life insurance. The specific basis for the denial was that the insured allegedly failed to disclose “methadone treatment for a narcotic addiction.” The trial court found there was no proof that the insured was taking methadone at the time of the application or that she was ever treated for “drug related problems.” On this basis, the trial court concluded the insured did not make anymisrepresentations in her application for life insurance and ordered the defendant to pay the death benefit plus pre-judgment interest. We affirm.
 

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse. On appeal, the sole issue presented by Mother is whether the trial court erred in determining that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the child. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm.
 

The Petitioner, Robert Jason Burgess, appeals from the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of rape and two counts of possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, for which he is serving an effective twenty-six-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. He also contends that the trial court erred in treating his letters as a petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The parental rights of the parents of three children were terminated on two statutory grounds, persistence of conditions pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(3), and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(2), and the finding that termination of their parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Both parents appeal contending the trial court erred in finding any ground existed for termination and that termination of their parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

This appeal results from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee insurance company. Appellee denied Appellant’s claim for fire loss on the ground that Appellant made material misrepresentations in the application for insurance. The trial court determined that Appellant took contradictory positions in his examination under oath and in his discovery deposition on the question of whether his application for insurance was completed when he signed it, or whether he signed it in blank before it was completed by the insurance agent. The trial court determined that Appellant’s inconsistent statements were not effective to create a dispute of material fact for purposes of summary judgment. We conclude that the motion for summary judgment was improperly granted. Reversed and remanded.
 

Wade Robinson and Melanie Robinson (“Plaintiffs”) sued the State of Tennessee (“State”) regarding a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of Plaintiffs’ son, Zachary L. Robinson. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that the State had not violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) or § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), and that the actions of Zachary L. Robinson were the sole proximate cause of the accident. We find and hold that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Court’s findings that the State did not violate Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I), that the State did not violate Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), and that Zachary L. Robinson was the sole proximate cause of the accident. We find and hold that Zachary L. Robinson was 50% at fault for the accident and that the State was 50% at fault for the accident.

After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of four counts of rape, Class B felonies, and three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, Class C felonies. The defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that the prosecution committed misconduct during closing argument, and that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his sentence on a single rape count consecutive to his remaining concurrent sentences. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Mother appeals the parenting plan adopted by the trial court, the award of child support, alimony and the allocation of the federal income tax dependent exemptions to Father. We affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the parenting plan and allocation of the federal income tax exemption.Finding error with the amount of income the courtimputed to Mother, and what appears to be an error regarding the cost of insurance, we reverse the award of child support and remand with instructions to impute Mother’s income based on the federal minimum wage and to recalculate the child support award in accordance with this opinion. We also hold that the trial court erred in denying Mother rehabilitative alimony,and therefore reverse and remand the issue of alimony to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate sum and duration of rehabilitative alimony.