APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Timothy J. Turner, was convicted of four counts of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and four counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen months for each count of sexual battery and four years for each count of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court ordered two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure to run consecutively to each other and the remaining counts to run concurrently for an effective eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction as a Range I offender. On appeal, defendant argues: (1) that the original judge failed to perform his role as thirteenth juror; (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to hear his motion for new trial; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Defendant’s dual convictions for sexual battery and sexual battery by an authority figure in counts five, six, and seven of the indictment violate double jeopardy principles. We accordingly merge his convictions for sexual battery into his convictions for sexual battery by an authority figure in counts five, six, and seven and remand to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial courts, including the effective sentence of eight years imposed by the trial court

The Town of Smyrna annexed land in 1991 that included a retail furniture store. The owner of that business kept a number of tractor-trailers parked on his property to store some of his inventory. Several years after the annexation, the town cited the owner in an attempt to enforce a municipal ordinance regulating the parking of tractor-trailers on commercially zoned property. The municipal court ruled against the owner. He appealed to the Circuit Court,which held that the ordinance in question was a zoning regulation and that the owner’s use of the tractor- trailers was protected bythe grandfathering provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b)(1). The town contends on appeal to this court that the ordinance is a property maintenance regulation rather than a zoning regulation and that the owner’s use of the tractor-trailers is therefore not entitled to the protection of the grandfather clause. We agree, and we reverse the Circuit Court because the proof does not indicate that compliance with the ordinance would substantially interfere with the store owner’s use of the property as a retail furniture business. Thus, it cannot be considered a zoning ordinance as applied to him under the standard established by our Supreme Court in Cherokee Country Club v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.2d 466 (Tenn. 2004).
 

The petitioner, Timothy Casterlow, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. In this appeal, he contends that principles of due process require the tolling of the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Bradley County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Winford McLean, of one count of facilitation of possession with intent to deliver 300, grams or more of cocaine. See T.C.A. § 39-17-417 and §39-11-403(2006). He was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to fifteen years in prison. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and by admitting evidence of his prior convictions for use as impeachment at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The question in this case is whether the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice action. Because the lawsuit before this court was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

The father and his wife petitioned the Court to terminate the parental rights of the two minor children's mother and allow the father's wife to adopt the two minor children. After a myriad of pleadings, the Trial Court held an evidentiary hearing and ruled that the father had proved statutory grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights, and that it was in the best interest of the two minor children that her parental rights be terminated. The mother petitioned to reconsider, and upon further consideration the Trial Court reversed its ruling and held that it was not in the children's best interest to terminate her rights as a parent of the two children. Petitioners appealed, and on appeal we hold that clear and convincing evidence established the statutory grounds for termination and clear and convincing evidence established that it was in the children's best interest to terminate the mother's parental rights. Further, that the Trial Judge in reversing her findings that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate the parental rights of the mother, focused on the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the children, as required by the statute and authorities. We reinstate the original Judgment of the Trial Court terminating the mother's parental rights.

The trial court denied Father’s petition to modify custody, restore telephone privileges, and re-evaluate income assignment. It found Father to be in contempt, and denied Mother’s request for attorney’s fees under Rule 11. The trial court awarded Mother a portion of her attorney’s fees. We affirm.
 

A Blount County jury convicted the Defendant, Wayne Robert Wait, of second degree murder and, thereafter, the trial court imposed a sentence of 18 years at 100% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a police officer to testify about blood spatter evidence he observed at the scene when the officer was not tendered as an expert in blood spatter analysis; (2) whether the trial court erred in limiting the admission of prior violent acts allegedly committed by the victim offered to corroborate the Defendant’s contention that the victim was the first aggressor and to support his self-defense claim; and (3) whether his sentence is excessive because the trial court failed to apply mitigating factors and gave too much weight to the sole enhancing factor. We conclude that there is no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff and third-partydefendant appeal the circuitcourt’s denial of third-partydefendant’s motion to dismiss, grant of defendant/third-party plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against third-party defendant, and dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. Finding that defendant/thirdparty plaintiff’s complaint makes out a claim for relief as a matter of law, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss. Finding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the grant of the motion for sanctions. Finding that defendant negated an element of plaintiff’s claim, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s case against the defendant.
 

Plaintiffs prevailed in personal injury action against Defendant in Shelby County General Sessions Court. On appeal in Shelby County Circuit Court, the matter was tried before a jury and a judgment was rendered in favor of Defendant. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The circuit court granted Plaintiff’s motion, but the parties settled the matter before retrial and signed a release memorializing the settlement. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(3) alleging that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and thus its judgment was void, because the Defendant failed to perfect the appeal from general sessions court. The circuit court denied the motion and Plaintiffs appealed. Finding that Defendant properly perfected the appeal from general sessions court, and that the release executed by the parties encompassed Plaintiffs’ claim, we affirm.

The Defendant, Michael Montell Williams, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for abuse of a corpse, especially aggravated kidnapping, felony murder, and premeditated first degree murder. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted 1 of one count of premeditated first degree murder and one count of abuse of a corpse. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202, -17-312. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the abuse of a corpse charge from the premeditated first degree murder charge; (2) the trial court erred in allowing a toxicologist to testify regarding his opinion on the likelihood that prescription drugs found in the victim’s blood caused her death; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In the previous appeal of this case, we determined that the trial court erred in denying Plaintiff the opportunity to appeal the dismissal of his case and in awarding $1,151.75 in sanctions to Defendant. The case was remanded and, on remand, the trial court directed the Defendant to return the monetary sanction by depositing the money with the Clerk and Master. Plaintiff appeals and contends that the trial court erred in not distributing the funds to him directly. We affirm the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.
 

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Devin Jefferson, of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of attempted robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress his statement to police because (1) the police continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to remain silent, (2) the police continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel, and (3) his statement was coerced. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this case, the trial court entered a default judgment against J. Alan Riggs (“Husband”) and Deborah D. Riggs (“Wife”) and against Husband and Preston Park Development, LLC (“Preston Park”). Husband, Wife, and Preston Park (collectively “the Defendants”) filed a motion for a new trial or to set aside the default judgment. The trial court granted the motion, in part, holding that Wife was not liable for one of the counts in the judgment entered against her. The trial court upheld the entirety of the other counts as they related to each of the Defendants. The Defendants appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Rhynuia L. Barnes, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition he contends that in a letter purportedly written by his now deceased father, his father confessed to the murder for which Petitioner was convicted. Petitioner asserts that the letter constitutes newly discovered evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The grand jury of Smith County indicted Defendant, Jose Amates Martinez, for the Class A felony offense of conspiracy to possess with intent to sell or deliver 150 grams or more of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged, and after a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to serve twenty years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment and/or suppress all evidence seized because the agents who stopped Defendant and searched the vehicle he was driving were working outside their territorial jurisdiction and beyond their lawful scope of authority; (3) the trial court erred by denying his additional motion to suppress evidence based upon Defendant’s assertions that Defendant was unlawfully stopped, Defendant’s consent to search was not knowingly and voluntarily given, and the search by the agents exceeded the scope of consent, if the consent was valid; (4) the trial court erred by overruling Defendant’s objection to the testimony of the forensic scientist regarding test results of the heroin seized; and (5) the trial court erred by overruling Defendant’s objection to a law enforcement officer’s testimony of the street value of the heroin seized. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a case involving life insurance and a Power of Attorney. After Decedent named Appellant as his attorney-in-fact through a Power of Attorney, the Appellant changed Decedent’s life insurance policy to name herself as primary beneficiary. Appellee, the
previous beneficiary of the policy, filed this action to prevent Appellant from receiving the proceeds, alleging fraud. The trial court found that the Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act prevented Appellant from changing the beneficiary of the policy. Further, the trial court held that Appellant’s argument that she had actual authority to make the change was an affirmative defense that was waived by Appellant’s failure to specifically plead it. Based on the foregoing, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

Defendant, James Beeler, an attorney, was cited for contempt of court in the Washington County Criminal Court because, during a court proceeding, he communicated with his client’s co-defendant who was represented by other counsel. Following a hearing, the trial court found Defendant in contempt of court and imposed a fine and a sentence of ten days in jail. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court suspended Defendant’s sentence. Defendant now appeals his conviction and asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for contempt of court. He specifically argues that it was error for the trial court to enforce Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8 or to charge Defendant with criminal contempt for a violation of Supreme Court Rule 8. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court granted Whitney Marie MacRae (“Wife”) a divorce by default against Thomas Paul MacRae (“Husband”). The default was based upon Husband’s failure to comply with an order compelling him to respond to Wife’s discovery requests. Shortly after Wife remarried – which was nearly a year after the divorce judgment was entered – Husband filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied the motion. Husband appeals from that denial. Wife argues that the judgment should not be set aside; she seeks damages for a frivolous appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We also find the appeal to be frivolous and remand to the trial court for a determination of the damages due Wife pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 1-122 (2000).

This appeal involves a disciplinaryproceeding against a Memphis lawyer who pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court for Shelby County to facilitating the felonious violation of the Tennessee Securities Act. After a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel recommended that he be disbarred, the lawyer filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Shelby County seeking judicial review of the hearing panel’s decision. The trial court affirmed the recommendation of the hearing panel, and the lawyer appealed to this Court. On appeal, the Board of Professional Responsibility asserts that the lawyer’s petition should be dismissed because his petition for writ of certiorari did not contain the recitation required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-106 (2000). For his part, the lawyer asserts that the punishment of disbarment is excessive. We have determined that the lawyer’s deficient petition for writ of certiorari does not prevent the courts from reviewing the hearing panel’s decision. We have also determined that the record fully supports the hearing panel’s findings and that disbarring the lawyer is not an excessive punishment in light of the facts and circumstances of this case.

Restaurant patron who was served food in which he found a tooth sued the restaurant for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. He sought compensatory and punitive damages. At trial, the court granted a directed verdict to defendant on the punitive damages and Consumer Protection Act claims and denied plaintiff’s special request that the court instruct the jury that recoverable damages for mental and emotional distress could also include anxiety or concern for others. Plaintiff appeals the grant of the directed verdicts and the failure to give the requested instruction. Finding no error, we affirm.

I concur in the judgment of the Court, but I do not concur in the reasoning of the majority opinion.

In this modification of child custody case, Father petitioned the court to change custody based on Mother’s relocation and the subsequent interference with his visitation. Finding a material change in circumstances, the juvenile court named Father primary residential parent. Mother appeals. Concluding that a material change in circumstances existed and the change in custody was in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

A Van Buren County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jerrie Bryant, of second degree murder. This Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions,but we vacated her sentences and remanded the case for resentencing. State v. Jerrie Bryant, No. M2007-02057-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 544650, *1-13 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 20, 2008), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Wife appeals the trial court’s decision to substantially reduce her alimony, contending there has not been a substantial and material change of circumstances. The parties were divorced in 2005 following a thirty year marriage. In 2008, Husband filed a petition for modification of alimony. The trial court held that a decrease in Husband’s income constituted a substantial and material change of circumstance, which warranted the reduction in alimony. The trial court also held that Husband was entitled to interest on overpayments of alimony. Wife appealed. We reverse based on the finding that there was not a substantial and material change of circumstance. We also find that although Husband is entitled to recover overpayments of alimony following the first appeal, he is not entitled to interest on the overpayments. Wife has requested her attorney’s fees. Applying the principles stated in Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, __S.W.3d __, 2011 WL 4116654 (Tenn. Sept. 16, 2011), we find Wife is not entitled to recover her attorney’s fees on appeal.