APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Antonio M. Miller, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to try him as an adult; (2) the prosecutor breached the plea agreement; (3) he was not given a psychological evaluation or a pretrial suppression hearing to challenge his confession; (4) he was not allowed to develop alibi witnesses; and (5) his nineteen-year sentence at one hundred percent is incorrect. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a medical malpractice case. Vicki P. Jacobs ("the Plaintiff") alleges that the failure of Stephen A. Mitchell, M.D., an otolaryngologist, and K. James Schumacher, M.D., a neuroradiologist, to diagnose cancer in the left sinus of her late husband, Harris N. Jacobs ("the Decedent"), in May 2000 caused his death in November 2001. The trial court granted all defendants summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiff, in the face of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to the element of causation. The court's ruling was premised, in part, on the court's holding that the affidavit of one of the experts was not timely filed and also because, according to the court, the plaintiff's experts gave deposition testimony that superseded and canceled out their assertions in affidavits. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the court's grant of summary judgment and an earlier order allowing the defendants to conduct ex parte interviews of treating physicians of the decedent. We vacate both orders and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner, James Mark Thornton, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein he challenged his judgments in Cocke County case numbers 6617, 6618, 6820, and 9827. In this appeal, the petitioner claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief on the basis that he received concurrent sentences when consecutive sentences were statutorily required. He also contends that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty pleas in each of the four cases because the concurrent sentence alignment was a bargained for element of each plea. We agree that the judgment in case number 6820 is void, but because the petitioner has failed to establish that he is restrained of his liberty by virtue of the void judgment, we affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief.

We review this post-conviction case to determine the validity of defendant's guilty plea when the trial court did not specifically ask the defendant "How do you plead?" and he did not respond with the words, "Guilty" or "Not guilty." We hold that the defendant's guilty plea was valid because the facts and circumstances of the case show that the defendant intended to plead guilty, affirmatively admitted his guilt, stated that he was entering his plea voluntarily, and believed that he was pleading guilty. Accordingly, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea, and the guilty plea proceedings in this case substantially complied with the mandates of federal and state law. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and we remand for reinstatement of the defendant's conviction under the accepted plea agreement.

The Defendant, Michael Orlando Freeman, pled guilty to robbery, a Class C felony, in the Criminal Court of Hamilton County with sentencing to be determined by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to five years' incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors to his sentence and in its denial of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Anthony L. Davis, and his codefendant, Michael Ray Crockett, for the felony murder, premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery of victim Edgar Moreno-Gutierrez and for the especially aggravated robbery and two counts of felony murder of victim Michael Adams. The trial court severed the defendant's trials, and in his first trial a Davidson County jury convicted him of the felony murder, premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery of victim Moreno- Gutierrez. The trial court merged the premeditated murder conviction with the felony murder conviction and sentenced the defendant to life plus twenty-three years. In his second trial, a Davidson County jury convicted the defendant of the especially aggravated robbery andd two counts of the felony murder of victim Adams. The trial court merged the two felonyd murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life plus eighteen years, to be served consecutively to his sentence from his first trial. The two cases were consolidated on appeal. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentencing in his first trial. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother's parental rights to her son. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the mother knowingly failed to protect her child by not immediately seeking medical care and by not immediately reporting her child's injuries to medical providers or the authorities. Therefore, the trial court terminated the mother's parental rights. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Kenneth L. Storey, filed in the Knox County Criminal Court a pro se "Application for Post-Conviction or Habeas Corpus Relief," alleging that his sentence was void because the trial court did not follow the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that it was filed outside the statute of limitations. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the post-conviction court's ruling. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Samuel L. Giddens, Jr., of reckless homicide, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of fourteen years. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the petitioner's convictions and sentence. State v. Samuel L. Giddens, Jr., No M2005-00691-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL618312, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 13, 2006), Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application denied (Tenn. June 26, 2006). The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, later amended by appointed counsel, alleging, in pertinent part, that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Andrew Neal Davis, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. State v. Andrew Neal Davis, No. M2002-02375- CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1562544 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jul. 9, 2004), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2004). Petitioner's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. at *1. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief primarily on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner also argued that the trial court committed various constitutional errors during trial. After a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied the petition for relief. Petitioner appealed to this Court. After a review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Sarah Ellen Eatherly, pled guilty to vehicular assault and reckless aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for judicial diversion and sentenced her to an effective sentence of two years, with seven days to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. The defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred when it denied her request for judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

A Warren County jury convicted the Petitioner, Michael Eugene Wilkerson, of three counts of the sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine and one count of the casual exchange of marijuana, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of fifty-seven years. On direct appeal, the petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and we affirmed the trial court's judgments. State v. Michael Wilkerson, No. M2005-02175-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2709240, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 22, 2006), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State withheld exculpatory evidence. After a hearing, the postconviction court dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Daniel Patrick Blankenship, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, theft over $10,000, and theft over $1,000. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of six years to be served on probation. Soon thereafter, a violation of probation affidavit was filed against the defendant. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. The defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in placing his original sentence into effect. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Husband and Wife seeking injunctive relief. Wife filed a counterclaim and cross-claim against Plaintiff and Husband alleging fraudulent conveyance, conversion, and misappropriation of assets. After a bench trial, the trial court found that Plaintiff and Husband devised a scheme to cloud the ownership of the business jointly owned by Husband and Wife and to hide assets from Wife during an impending divorce. The trial court awarded damages totaling $175,000 to Wife. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This is a personal injury case. The Appellant/Defendant's employee backed a van into a vehicle which the Appellee/Plaintiff was driving. Until the accident, the Plaintiff had not had any problems with her right shoulder. The morning after the accident the Plaintiff had pain and soreness in her shoulder. She was treated by three different orthopedic surgeons and ultimately had arthroscopic right shoulder surgery. The parties stipulated to liability. However, the Defendant disputed causation. A bench trial was held and the trial court found that the accident caused the Plaintiff's shoulder injury which necessitated the shoulder surgery. Defendant appealed from the trial court's judgment. We affirm.

Gladys Davis ("Plaintiff") filed this retaliatory discharge case against her former employer, Nissan North America, Inc. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff claims Defendant retaliated against her for filing several workers' compensation claims. Prior to Plaintiff's discharge, she underwent a comprehensive medical examination and, based on this examination, two physicians who are board certified in occupational and preventive medicine opined that there was a high risk of re-injury should Plaintiff be returned to work. Relying on the medical opinions of these two physicians, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court concluded, among other things, that Defendant had negated an essential element of Plaintiff's claim and Defendant, therefore, was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.

Mother appeals the trial court's change of custody of the parties' minor child to Father. Father appeals the trial court's determination of Mother's child support obligation and its failure to award him a judgment for child support retroactive to the date he was awarded temporary custody. Both parties contest the trial court's findings of contempt. We affirm the trial court's change of custody to Father. We reverse its finding of contempt as to Mother and the denial of retroactive child support for Father. We remand the matter to the court for a determination of Mother's child support obligation.

The chancery court upheld the administrative decision based on Tenn. Code Ann. _ 55-4-226(f) (2004); however, the statute was amended in a material way in 2009, during the pendency of this case, which was not brought to the attention of the court. The Department has acknowledged in this appeal that the current statute provides that a former "appointed" municipal court judge, such as Appellant, may obtain a judicial license plate. We have determined the 2009 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 55-4-226(f) provides the relief Appellant is seeking; therefore, the issues on appeal are moot. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for mootness.

The Defendant, Jerry Wayne Watson, Jr., pled guilty to sale of cocaine in an amount more than .5 grams in case number 36,430 and to sale of cocaine in an amount more than .5 grams in case number 36,431. Following a sentencing hearing for both cases, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eight years, with 120 days in confinement followed by seven years and eight months on community corrections. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying full probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Hollena Arlene West, was found guilty of driving under the influence ("DUI"). The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with the sentence suspended and Defendant placed on probation after serving ten days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony concerning the effect of taking multiple prescription medications. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Employee alleged that she sustained a compensable injury to her back. Employer referred her to a physician who opined that her condition was not work-related, and her claim was thereafter denied. After trial, the court found that Employee’s condition was compensable and awarded 65% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and temporary total disability benefits. Employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that a compensable injury occurred, or alternatively in ordering payment of temporary total disability benefits. We modify the award of temporary total disability benefits but otherwise affirm the judgment.

The Defendant-Appellant, Manfred Steinhagen, appeals pro se from the Circuit Court of Cheatham County. He was initially found guilty by the General Sessions Court of Cheatham County of speeding and violating the Financial Responsibility Act, both Class C misdemeanors. Steinhagen was fined ten dollars for each conviction. He appealed to the Circuit Court, which upheld the judgments of the General Sessions Court. In this appeal, Steinhagen challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and raises several procedural claims. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court.

Father appeals trial court finding of substantial and material change in circumstances and resulting modification of parenting plan. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

City employee brought suit to challenge her dismissal for violation of the city's drug and alcohol policy. The trial court affirmed the decision of the city's disciplinary review board. The employee argues that the decision of the disciplinary review board should be reviewed de novo, that the city is estopped by its actions from relying on the blood alcohol test results and from terminating her employment, that she was denied due process by the actions of the city manager and the disciplinary review board, that the city abused its discretion, and that the city's decision is not supported by substantial and material evidence. We have concluded, as did the trial court, that the decision of the disciplinary review board is properly reviewable under the standards set forth in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Under those standards, we affirm the trial court's decision.