APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following affirmance on direct appeal of his murder conviction and accompanying sentence of death, State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2006), the Petitioner, Stephen Lynn Hugueley, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court appointed the Office of the Post-Conviction Defender to represent the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter wrote the post-conviction court expressing his desire to withdraw his petition for post-conviction relief. A competency hearing was held in November 2008. On January 8, 2009, the post-conviction court found the Petitioner competent and entered an order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. A notice of appeal was filed on February 19, 2009. The Petitioner filed a motion to remand the matter to the post-conviction court. The motion was predicated upon the Petitioner’s desire to proceed with any and all available challenges to his conviction and sentence. This court entered an order concluding that the motion to remand shall be heard contemporaneously with arguments on the merits of the Petitioner’s Rule 3 appeal. On appeal to this court, the Petitioner presents a number of claims related to the lower court’s determination that he was competent to withdraw his petition for post-conviction relief, including the lower court’s denial of independent experts, medically appropriate experts, and sufficient time to prepare. Following a thorough and exhaustive review of the record and the applicable law, this court declines to expand the precedent established in Pike v. State and concludes that the Petitioner may not belatedly withdraw his decision to dismiss his petition for post-conviction relief. Additionally, this court concludes that the post-conviction court did not err in concluding that the Petitioner was competent to withdraw his motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Dane Shannon Briest, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to theft of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, a Class D felony, and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. He received concurrent sentences of six years, one month for the felony conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor conviction to be served on probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Ryan Watson, was indicted in June of 2009 by the Polk County Grand Jury for driving under the influence (“DUI”) of an intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system, or in the alternative, driving while the alcohol concentration in the defendant’s blood or breath was .08% or more. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress the following: (1) the search of his person and vehicle; (2) his statement at the time of the arrest; (3) the results of the blood alcohol test; and (4) the results of the field sobriety tests. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motions. Subsequently, Petitioner pled guilty to DUI, first offense and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the county jail. The trial court suspended the sentence, after service of forty-eight hours, and ordered Appellant to serve the sentence on probation. As a condition of the guilty plea, Appellant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure arguing that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the factual findings of the trial court that there was probable cause for the stop of Appellant’s vehicle. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua Maurice Hickman, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence. He pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Davidson County to possession with intent to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, a Class B felony. Hickman was originally sentenced as a multiple offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Pursuant to the plea agreement, this sentence was suspended to twelve years on community corrections. On appeal, Hickman concedes that he violated the terms of the community corrections sentence. He argues, however, that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing his original sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Julio Ramirez, of six counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of rape of a child, and one count of assault, for crimes involving multiple victims, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eighteen years of confinement. The trial court subsequently reduced this sentence to fifteen years following a motion for new trial hearing. On direct appeal from his convictions, the Defendant contends: (1) his trial counsel deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel by failing to move to sever the offenses with respect to the multiple victims; (2) he did not knowingly waive his right to be tried separately for the offenses and, as such, his joint trial for these offenses violated his rights to due process, a jury trial, and the effective assistance of counsel; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for rape of a child; (4) the trial court improperly limited the defense’s cross-examination of the victims’ mother; (5) the trial court improperly limited the defense’s presentation of character testimony; (6) the State made improper remarks during closing argument; and (7) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Randy K. Sanders, entered a plea of guilty to driving under the influence, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor, on July 2, 2010. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail and suspended all but 120 days of the sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court relied on an inappropriate enhancement factor in determining the period of confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal of a divorce matter. We dismiss this appeal for Appellant's failure to appeal a final judgment.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee filed a Worker’s Compensation action on August 22, 2003 alleging a compensable injury in the course of his employment with his employer in December 1998. The employer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02. The trial court entered an order in September 2008, stating that the employer was withdrawing the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute based upon the employee’s commitment to take a medical deposition within sixty days. A second motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was filed and heard on March 15, 2010 because the medical deposition had not been taken. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice. The employee has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

The petitioner, Thomas Edward Kotewa, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Amy B. (“Mother”) is the biological mother of the minor children, Aiden R. B. and Evan M. B. (“the Children”). The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children. Following a trial, the Juvenile Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) found and held, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children on four grounds under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1), (2), and (3) and that termination was in the Children’s best interest. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We affirm.

This is a child support case. The juvenile court found, inter alia, the father owed a child support arrearage of $21,356.63. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee filed a workers’ compensation action contending his injury while cutting trees at his employer’s home was in the usual course of his employment at his employer’s floor covering business. The trial court held that employee’s work was casual employment not in the usual course of his employer’s business as defined by TCA § 50-6-106(2) and not covered by the workers’ compensation statute. We affirm the judgment.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant in this malicious prosecution action. We affirm.

In this products liability case, a widow sought compensation for the death of her husband from mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at his workplace. She sued the company that sold products containing asbestos to her husband’s employer. She based her claim on strict liability and alleged that the seller sold defective products and failed to warn her husband of the products’ health risks. The jury found that the seller was at fault, but that her husband’s employer was the sole cause of his injury and awarded her nothing. The widow appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial based on erroneous jury instructions that more probably than not affected the judgment of the jury. On review, we hold that the seller was subject to suit in strict liability, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-28-106(b) (2000), because none of the products’ manufacturers were subject to service of process. Further, we hold that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the seller could not be held liable for failure to warn if the jury found that the consumer, identified as the employer, was already aware of any danger in connection with the use of the products or if the employer had been given adequate warnings. This jury instruction was erroneous for two reasons. First, it applied the learned intermediary doctrine, which the courts of this state have limited to medical products and pharmaceuticals. Second, the jury instruction misidentified the consumer as the employer, when the consumer who was required to be warned was the employee, Mr. Nye. Because the error more probably than not affected the judgment of the jury, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Appellant, Phillip Lynn Dorse, was indicted by the Dyer County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault in connection with a neighborhood altercation during which Appellant hit two individuals with a baseball bat. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and one count of assault. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of eight years as a Range II, multiple offender to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Carl Bost, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell cocaine, a Class C felony, and attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony, in exchange for a cumulative sentence of six years, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. He filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, he argues that he entered his plea unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the learned intermediary doctrine is not applicable to the facts of this case. I disagree, however, that Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (“Pittsburgh Corning”) and Owens Corning Corporation (“Owens Corning”) were unavailable for service of process and that North Brothers, Inc. (“North Brothers”) therefore is subject to suit in strict liability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-28-106 (2000).

The defendant, Rodney McAlister, was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of vandalism between $1000 and $10,000, a Class D felony. He was thereafter sentenced to a term of five years, as a multiple offender, in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that the State failed to negate the defenses of duress and necessity. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the conviction.

The petitioner, Chad Rogers, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the sentencing phase of his trial by not investigating and presenting evidence of his mental illness as a mitigating factor. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Tony Hoover, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner entered open Alford pleas to two counts of rape and two counts of incest. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-one years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner contends that his pleas were not entered with an understanding of the nature and consequences of the pleas. He also contends that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly inform him of the terms and consequences of his guilty pleas and by advising him to waive his ex post facto rights and be sentenced pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the Sentencing Act. Following careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury found the appellant, Junior P. Samuel, guilty of five counts of rape and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for judgments of acquittal because of the State’s failure to establish venue; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting a medical report containing statements the victim made to Phyllis Lynn Thompson in violation of the Confrontation Clause and the rule prohibiting hearsay statements; (3) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (4) whether the cumulative errors at trial denied the appellant due process. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Walter Williams, for one count of rape in connection with the rape of his thirteen-year-old daughter. A jury found Appellant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eight years as a Range I, standard offender. Appellant appeals his conviction. He argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in allowing testimony of an expert witness; (3) the trial court erred in allowing certain questions during the jury voir dire; and (4) the trial court erred in failing to give the missing witness jury instruction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Appellant’s argument must fail. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Scott W. Grammer, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for three counts of aggravated sexual battery and resulting effective twenty-two-year sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, he argues that the State engaged in egregious, improper, and deceptive practices during the trial; that the post-conviction court should have amended his improperly enhanced sentences; and that the evidence is insufficient to support one of his convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Antonio F. Baker, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request to modify his sentence via Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An employee sustained an injury to his shoulder at work. After a surgical repair, he briefly returned to work but was laid off prior to reaching maximum medical improvement. He filed a complaint in chancery court seeking workers’ compensation benefits from his employer. His treating physician assigned no impairment rating and placed no restrictions on his activities. An evaluating physician assigned 6% impairment to the body as a whole and recommended that Mr. Lewis avoid certain activities. The trial court awarded 36% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed, contending that the award is excessive. We modify the judgment to award 24% permanent partial disability to the employee. We also conclude that local Rule 17A of the Chancery Court of the 28th Judicial District of Tennessee conflicts with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58.