APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Landon Christopher McGahee, pled guilty to five counts of burglary of an automobile and was sentenced to serve six years on community corrections. He appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order of incarceration. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering four years of the previously imposed sentence to be served in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In May, 2007, Defendant, Jeremy Lieutenant Fuqua, pled guilty to various offenses, including three counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and one count of Class C felony theft. He received a sentence of four years for each conviction of aggravated burglary and a sentence of three years for the theft conviction, with all sentences to be served consecutively with each other for an effective sentence of fifteen years. Defendant was given the opportunity to serve the entire sentence on probation. Subsequently, there were three separate probation violation proceedings, but ultimately none resulted in revocation of the entire probation sentence. The fourth probation violation proceeding, which is the subject of this appeal, was filed based upon new criminal charges, failure to report arrests, and various technical violations. After a hearing the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered the entire effective sentence of fifteen years to be served by incarceration. On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the findings that he violated his probation; he does insist that he should not have been ordered to serve his entire sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in each conviction.

A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Bryant Kelly Pride, of two counts of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine and two counts of the delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of thirty-six years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions, (2) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictments for the State’s failure to provide the Defendant a speedy trial, (3) the trial court improperly allowed the State’s expert witness to testify without proper notice to the Defendant, and (4) the Defendant’s sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his trial that resulted in convictions of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Kenneth D. Gann, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years, to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress a statement he gave while in the hospital. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Ted Ormand Pate, of attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted the Defendant’s tape recorded confession to his daughter; (2) limited the scope of an expert witness’s testimony regarding the Defendant’s susceptibility to suggestion; and (3) disallowed the expert witness’s testimony regarding the interview techniques used during the victim’s forensic interview. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant-Appellant, Michael D. Johnson, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. Johnson was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction for rape of a child and ten years for aggravated sexual battery, to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner was convicted by a jury for possession of cocaine, possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver, and possession of marijuana. These convictions were sustained on appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during a police search. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proving that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Department of Children's Services petitioned the Trial Court to terminate the parental rights of the mother, DJ, and the presumptive father, TH, who was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court terminated the parental rights of the mother DJ and her husband at the time of the child's birth, TH. Both parties appealed to this Court and we affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights and vacate the Judgment terminating TH's parental rights on the grounds that the statutory grounds for termination was not established by the evidence.

The Petitioner, Ricky Johnson, was convicted by a Madison County jury in 1989 of burglary of an automobile and grand larceny and was sentenced to concurrent eight-year sentences as a Range II, persistent offender. More than twenty-one years later, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that there was a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial and that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections. The Madison County Circuit Court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the coram nobis court erred: (1) in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel; and (2) in denying him relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Appendix - Exhibit 1

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Keele Camille Maynor (a/k/a Payne), pled guilty to nine charges and was sentenced as follows: in Count 1, Defendant pled guilty to Class C felony theft and was sentenced to serve 42 months in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC); in Count 2, Defendant pled guilty to Class C felony theft and was sentenced to five years in TDOC, suspended with probation for ten years; in Count 3, Defendant pled guilty to Class D felony theft and was sentenced to three years in TDOC, suspended with probation for six years; in Count 4, Defendant pled guilty to Class D felony theft (although the judgment, in error, reflects a conviction for Class E felony theft) and was sentenced to three years in TDOC, suspended with probation for six years; in Count 5, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony theft and was sentenced to two years in TDOC, suspended with probation for four years; in Count 6, Defendant pled guilty to Class D felony theft and was sentenced to three years in TDOC, suspended with probation for six years; in Count 7, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony theft and was sentenced to two years in TDOC, suspended with probation for five years; in Count 8, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony theft and was sentenced to two years in TDOC, suspended with probation for five years; and in Count 9, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony forgery and was sentenced to serve two years in TDOC. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant was to receive concurrent Range I sentences, but the trial court, following a sentencing hearing, determined the length, range, and manner of Defendant’s sentences. The trial court also imposed an agreed upon amount of restitution. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of a 42-month sentence of incarceration in Count 1 and asserts that the sentence structure imposed by the trial court results in consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences. We affirm the convictions and sentences imposed in all counts, except for Count 4, which we remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

Plaintiff made claim for credit disability insurance coverage after he became disabled, and defendant insurance company denied benefits on the grounds of misrepresentations in the application for insurance, which he had executed. The Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiff on the grounds that misrepresentations in the application did not increase the risk of loss. On appeal, we reverse the Trial Court's Judgment because the misrepresentations contained in the application for insurance increase defendant's risk of loss under the statute.

Defendant-Appellant, Connie R. Martin, appeals from the Gibson County Circuit Court’s order revoking her probation. She was originally convicted of two counts of solicitation of first degree murder, aggravated burglary, forgery, and misdemeanor theft. She received an effective twenty-year sentence, part of which was to be served on probation. In this appeal, Martin claims that the trial court erred in revoking her probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from an order entered by the Chancery Court for Davidson County transferring an inmate’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Chancery Court for Morgan County. Because the order appealed does not resolve the claims raised in the petition but merely transfers those claims to another court, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.
 

At issue in this appeal is the amount of income that can be imputed to the father for child support, as well as whether the mother should be charged with the attorney fees and costs in regard to an order of protection. The trial court found that the father was voluntarily underemployed. Finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding of voluntary underemployment, we affirm the trial court as to that matter. We reverse the trial court’s ruling regarding the attorney fees and costs.

The petitioner, Tarrean V. Nuby, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated robbery, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This is a medical malpractice case in which Pauletta C. Crawford (“Wife”) and James Crawford (“Husband”) filed suit against Eugene Kavanaugh, M.D. (“Doctor”). While the suit was pending, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122 was amended to require the contemporaneous filing of a certificate of good faith with complaints alleging medical malpractice. Husband and Wife (collectively the “Crawfords”) dismissed their suit and filed a new complaint that did not include a certificate of good faith. Doctor filed a motion to dismiss, and the court dismissed the case. The Crawfords appeal. We affirm the trial court.

The Defendant, Michael Antonio Dodson, pled guilty to aggravated rape and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, Class A felonies; two counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies; and aggravated burglary and employing a firearm during a felony, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-502 (2010) (aggravated rape), 39-13-305 (2010) (especially aggravated kidnapping), 39-13-402 (2010) (aggravated robbery), 39-14-403 (2010) (aggravated burglary), 39-17-1324 (Supp. 2008) (amended 2009) (employing a firearm). He was sentenced to serve twenty-five years for aggravated rape, twenty-three years for each of the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, ten years for each of the aggravated robbery convictions, five years for aggravated burglary, and ten years for employing a firearm. The trial court imposed partial consecutive sentencing yielding an effective sentence of eighty-six years. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred in choosing the length of his sentences and in imposing consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Timothy Garvin Odom, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This appeal concerns the existence of an easement. The dispute between the two adjoining landowners began after the defendant landowners blocked the plaintiff neighboring landowner’s access to a roadway crossing over the defendants’ property. The plaintiff landowner filed this action seeking condemnation or a finding of an implied easement for access to the roadway over the defendants’ property, arguing that his property was landlocked. Upon the admission into evidence of severalaffidavits,the trialcourtfound both an easement implied from prior use and, in the alternative, an easement created by necessity. The defendant landowners now appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

The defendant, Paul M. Stackhouse, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals his conviction, claiming that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain expert testimony and by failing to provide a requested special jury instruction regarding same; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a witness to testify regarding a prior inconsistent statement made by one of the State’s witnesses during the State’s case-in-chief and by refusing to provide a limiting jury instruction regarding same; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to grant a judgment of acquittal. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the court below.

After a jury trial, both Appellants were found guilty of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. As a result, they were both sentenced to fifteen years as Range II, multiple offenders. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively to sentences for other offenses for which the Appellants had already been sentenced. After the denial of a motion for new trial and motion for judgment of acquittal, Appellants have appealed to this Court. On appeal, both Appellants contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Additionally, Appellant Currie insists that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial based on the “perjured testimony of a key witness.” After a review of the evidence, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Appellant Currie failed to show that the State knowingly utilized false testimony that was material to the conviction. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A Sevier County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Casey Treat, for driving under the influence and driving under the influence per se. The Defendant pled guilty but reserved a certified question of law, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), as to whether the absence of the video recording of his stop violated his constitutional rights. After review, we conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the certified question because it does not comply with the strict requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), as the certified question is (1) not dispositive of the case and (2) overly broad. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

This appeal involves the assertion of the qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2008) action filed in state court. A registered nurse employed at a state psychiatric facility publicly disagreed with a change in the facility’s procedures for administering prescription medications at night and on the weekend. When the facility declined to change its procedures, the nurse filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Chancery Court for Davidson County against various officials and employees of the then Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, alleging the existence of a hostile work environment and retaliation for the exercise of her constitutionally protected free speech rights. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the nurse’s First Amendment claim and a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting qualified immunity. The trial court, after considering the products of two years of discovery, granted both of the defendants’ motions and dismissed the nurse’s complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court with regard to both motions based on its conclusion that material issues of fact precluded both motions. King v. Betts, No. M2009-00117-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 4893590 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2009). We granted the defendants’ Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal to address the procedure for the consideration of qualified immunity defenses in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions filed in Tennessee’s courts and to determine whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the facts of this case. We have determined that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the nurse has failed to demonstrate that the defendants’ response to her criticism of the changes in the procedures for administering prescription medications violated a clearly established right.