APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Levi Battle, III, of possession of twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty years, at 60%, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, in which he alleged that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced outside of his sentencing range. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals the habeas corpus court’s judgment. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Defendant, Robert Conley, filed a pro se notice of appeal which was timely as to the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. The trial court subsequently appointed counsel to represent Defendant. In his brief on appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering service of the fourteen-year sentence by incarceration, in addition to arguing that the trial court erred by denying his Rule 35 motion. We conclude that the issue regarding revocation of the community corrections sentence is waived by Defendant’s failure to timely appeal that order. Further, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s Rule 35 motion, and, accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Shawn Blair, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his two convictions for simple possession of marijuana and resulting sentences of eleven-months, twenty-nine days for each conviction to be served consecutively. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without appointing counsel or conducting a hearing on the basis that the Petitioner had filed it while his direct appeal was pending. The Petitioner argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he did not plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The State contends that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition because the  Petitioner did not file it prematurely. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent  with this opinion.

This is a divorce case. One minor child was born of the marriage. After the parties filed for divorce, the wife relocated out of state with the parties’ child without obtaining court permission to do so. The husband filed a petition to hold the wife in contempt for relocating out of state with the child. The trial court declined to hold the wife in contempt, designated the wife as the primary residential parent, and ordered the husband to pay child support. In dividing the marital property, the husband was ordered to pay the statutory penalty for early withdrawal of the monies in his retirement savings account. The wife was awarded rehabilitative alimony and attorney fees as alimony in solido. The husband now appeals the relocation decision, the designation of primary residential parent, the assessment of the retirement account penalty, and the award of attorney fees. We  affirm.

Defendant, Sonny Wayne Smith, was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury for harassment, a class E felony, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-308. Defendant entered a guilty plea to the offense as charged. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to serve two years in confinement, and his sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a misdemeanor sentence. In this direct appeal, Defendant challenges the length of his sentence and the consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Inmate of the Tennessee Department of Corrections appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Department in inmate’s declaratory judgment action. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Jonathan T. Stewart, entered a plea of guilty to driving under the influence, first offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be suspended to probation after the service of forty-eight hours of confinement. As part of the plea agreement, the Defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his traffic stop.  Because the Defendant has failed to properly certify his issue for review, the appeal is dismissed.

The Petitioner, Sandra Kay Hembree, pleaded guilty to second degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. She received two twenty-year sentences, those sentences to be served concurrently at 100%. She now appeals from the Cocke County Circuit Court’s order denying post-conviction relief, contending that this denial was error because she received the ineffective  assistance of counsel and, consequently, entered her pleas involuntarily and unknowingly. Specifically, she contends that trial counsel failed to interview the State’s witnesses, failed to provide her with discovery materials, and failed to meet with her often enough to adequately prepare for trial. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Martha Patlan, of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the murder conviction and, consecutive to the life sentence, twenty years for the aggravated child abuse conviction both to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the  defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder; (2) her felony murder conviction is unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the state to elect an incident of neglect; (4) the trial court erred when it refused to allow testimony regarding bruises on the defendant’s face; (5) the trial court erred when it allowed certain photographs into evidence; (6) the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the use of the term Battered Child Syndrome; and (7) the trial court erred by ordering that the defendant serve her sentences consecutively. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises out of the dissolution of a partnership. After several days of trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement. After the partnership property was sold pursuant to the settlement agreement and the proceeds were to be disbursed, one of the defendants claimed that he was entitled to more money than the settlement agreement provided for him to receive. The trial judge denied the request for additional funds. We affirm and remand for the trial court to determine a reasonable and appropriate attorney’s fee.

The Defendant, Christopher Collins, was indicted by the Lawrence County grand jury on three counts of felony child neglect, a Class E felony. The Defendant waived his right to trial by a jury and was convicted by the trial court of two counts of felony child neglect and one count of misdemeanor child neglect. The Defendant received concurrent sentences of 18 months in the  Tennessee Department of Correction for the felony convictions and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days in the county jail for the misdemeanor conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that in the alternative, he should have been convicted of attempted child neglect. Following our review, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the Defendant’s convictions. As there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted child neglect, we reverse and vacate the Defendant’s convictions of felony and misdemeanor child neglect and impose two convictions of attempted felony child neglect, a Class A misdemeanor, and one conviction of attempted child neglect, a Class B misdemeanor. The case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

The Defendant, Melvin L. Finley, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402(b). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) did not sentence him to the Community Corrections Program; and (2) did not consider his drug addiction as a mitigating factor. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case concerning a minor child Navaeh L. (“the Child”), who is the daughter of Elizabeth L. (“Mother”) and William T.(“Father”). Separate petitions to terminate the parents’ rights were filed by Nicole Q., the Child’s maternal aunt, and her husband, Bryan (collectively, “Aunt and Uncle”), after the Child was adjudicated dependent and neglected, pursuant to Mother’s stipulation. Following this finding, the Child was placed in the custody of Aunt and Uncle. Father’s paternity of the Child was not established until after the adjudicatory hearing, but before the petition to terminate was filed. Mother and Father, represented by separate counsel, each opposed the termination of their rights. Following a bench trial, the court granted both petitions upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that each of the alleged grounds was established and that termination was in the best interest of the Child. As to Father, the trial court relied upon the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit and the persistence of unremedied conditions. Father appeals. ¹ We affirm.

The Petitioner, Gene Shelton Rucker, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for criminally negligent homicide and aggravated arson. In his petition, he asserts that his sentence is illegal because it was improperly enhanced in violation of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that principles of res judicata dictate that this issue not be relitigated. The order of dismissal is affirmed.

In this divorce case, the trial court granted Roger Dale Raper (“Husband”) and Johanna Raper (“Wife”) an absolute divorce, thereby ending their 26-year union. A bench trial was held to resolve the remaining issues of property division and alimony. The court divided the marital property and awarded Wife alimony in solido and alimony in futuro. Husband appeals and challenges each of these determinations. We affirm.

Plaintiff, a guest passenger in a vehicle involved in an accident, filed this action to recover uninsured motorist benefits. The vehicle in which Plaintiff was riding was owned and operated by an insured of Shelter Insurance Company. The accident was the fault of the driver of another vehicle who was not insured; therefore, Plaintiff seeks to recover uninsured motorist coverage benefits from Shelter. Insisting that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the driver’s policy because Plaintiff did not meet the definition of an “insured” in the policy, Shelter moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that Plaintiff was an “insured” under the terms of the Shelter policy and denied the motion. This interlocutory appeal followed. We have determined that Plaintiff is not an “insured” pursuant to the terms of the Shelter policy and that Shelter is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Shelter’s motion for summary judgment.

The Petitioner, Celso Vilorio Melendez, aka Edwin Canales, appeals as of right the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner alleges that his guilty pleas to two counts of facilitation to deliver over 300 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, was not voluntarily, knowingly and understandingly made due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel did not advise him of the eligibility requirements for participation in the Department of Correction’s (DOC) Boot Camp Program, and that, had he been properly advised, he would not have pleaded guilty. After the appointment of counsel and a full evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that the Petitioner failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence and denied the petition. Following our review, we conclude that trial counsel rendered deficient representation when he incorrectly advised the Petitioner that he was eligible for the boot camp program. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for a determination regarding whether that deficiency was prejudicial to the Petitioner.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Alan Dale Bobyarchick, was convicted of violating an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-113(g). In this direct appeal, he contends that, in the Order of Protection, the circuit court did not make any specific findings of fact that he committed domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, and, therefore, he could not be convicted of violating the Order of Protection pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113(f)(3). After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court awarded a directed verdict to the Defendant in this tort action arising out of an automobile accident. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A Davidson County jury convicted Petitioner, Keith L. Jackson, of one count of possession with the intent to sell twenty-six grams or more of a substance containing cocaine in a drugfree school zone and one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to employ it in the commission of or escape from an offense. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty-six years. Following an appeal to this Court, his conviction for possession of a firearm was reversed. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was unsuccessful. His subsequent petition for writ of habeas corpus was also unsuccessful. Petitioner has filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus which was summarily dismissed by the habeas corpus court. Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition in this appeal. He argues that his sentence requiring a 100% release eligibility is unconstitutional and is contrary to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition because these issues were determined by this Court in Petitioner’s prior appeal from the dismissal of his earlier petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Following his convictions for second degree murder and theft, the Petitioner, Christopher Kyle, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, specifically in failing to challenge the accuracy of the autopsy report and the sentencing procedure employed by the trial court. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Marshall County jury convicted the Defendant, Brian Mark Driggers, of forgery and misdemeanor theft, and the trial court sentenced him to one year and three months to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that the State failed to prove venue, and that the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Charles Phillip Maxwell, was convicted of driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s license for a year and sentenced the Defendant to 30 days in the county jail, suspended to probation following the service of 24 hours in the county jail. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Calvin Owens, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for one count of attempted second degree murder, one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to communicate with him, in failing to properly investigate his case, in withdrawing the suppression motion regarding the photo spread identification, in questioning the victim regarding the bad dreams he had while recovering from his injuries in the hospital, and in failing to advise him about the advantages and disadvantages of testifying at trial. In addition, the Petitioner argues that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to appeal a hearsay issue that was included in the motion for new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The plaintiff claimed that in 1997 he entered into a verbal partnership agreement with the defendant to open and operate the antique store that the plaintiff managed for the next twelve years. He further claimed that the defendant withheld profits and other benefits of the partnership  from him, in violation of their agreement. The plaintiff accordingly asked the trial court to dissolve  the partnership and to award him his share of the partnership assets. The defendant filed a Rule  12.02(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. She denied that she had ever been in any sort of partnership relationship with the plaintiff and claimed, instead, that he was a salaried managerial employee-at-will of her solely-owned corporation. The trial court  granted the defendant’s motion. The allegations in the complaint, which we must take as true, state a claim for relief.  Additionally, material extraneous to the complaint was submitted and presumably considered by the trial court, requiring that the motion be treated as one for summary judgment. Disputes of material fact exist in the filings, precluding the grant of summary judgment.
Accordingly, we reverse.