APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court granted the wife a divorce, equitably divided the parties' property, and awarded the wife alimony in solido. We affirm.

Landowners filed suit to determine ownership of that portion of Ann Wilson Road that crosses their property. Defendants sought and were granted summary judgment based on the running of several statutes of limitations. Landowners appealed. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Rodney A. Lucas, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County to possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony. He received a sentence of eight years to be served on probation. The trial court revoked Lucas' probation after his second violation. On appeal, Lucas admits that he violated his probation for a second time; however, he claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Kenneth J. Cradic, appeals the summary dismissal of post-conviction relief by the Sullivan County Criminal Court. The Petitioner was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and three counts of incest, a Class C felony. He received a sentence of twenty years for each rape of a child conviction and a sentence of four years for each incest conviction. The trial court ordered that two of the twenty-year sentences for rape of a child be served consecutively to one another but concurrently with the third conviction and ordered that the three counts of incest be served consecutively to one another but concurrently with the rape of a child convictions, for an effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief without appointing counsel. Upon review, we reverse the judgment summarily denying post-conviction relief and remand this case to the postconviction court for a full evidentiary hearing on the Petitioner's claim of ineffectiveassistance of counsel regarding the misapplication of the sentencing law.

The employee sustained gradual injuries to his arms and shoulders as a result of repetitive motion in the course of his employment. His employer denied liability based upon the affirmative defense of misrepresentation of physical condition. Employee had sustained gradual injuries to his left shoulder and arm during a previous job. He was placed under permanent activity restrictions and received a workers’ compensation award as a result of those injuries. In applying for employment with appellant, he did not disclose the prior injuries. The trial court concluded that the employer did not prove the misrepresentation defense. Permanent total disability benefits were awarded. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that it did not sustain its burden of proof as to the affirmative defense. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings and that the employee’s misrepresentation was willful, was relied upon by the employer and was causally related to his subsequent injuries. Because we find that the employer sustained its burden of proving its affirmative defense, we reverse the awarding of benefits. Finally, we conclude that the employer is not entitled to recover the cost of retaining a consulting physician to view a surgical procedure that did not take place.

This suit was filed in Circuit Court after first being filed and then voluntarily non-suited in Chancery Court. After multiple discovery abuses, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Quidon Clemons, was convicted of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, aggravated stalking, a Class E felony, and violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to two years for aggravated stalking. As to the misdemeanors, Defendant was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days for assault, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for violation of an order of protection. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a divorce action. Husband/Appellant appeals from the trial court's division of marital assets, award of attorneys fees to the Wife, and the stay of the proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. Affirmed as modified.

An assistant principal was transferred to a teaching position and grieved the transfer pursuant to a locally negotiated agreement between the local board of education and the organization representing teachers. After pursuing remedies through the school board, the teacher asked the trial court to compel the board to arbitrate resolution of the dispute. The trial court granted summary judgment to the school board, concluding that Tenn. Code Ann. _ 49-2-303 applied since "assistant principals" are statutorily the same as "principals" and, under the holding in Marion County Board of Education v. Marion County Education Association, 86 S.W.3d 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), the director of schools has the authority to transfer principals unrestrained by locally negotiated agreements. Mr. Johnson and the association appealed, claiming that Tenn. Code Ann. _ 49-2-303 does not apply to assistant principals and that the director of schools must comply with their agreement in making transfer decisions. We agree that the arbitration provision is not enforceable, but for a different reason. We hold that there was no meeting of the minds as to the procedure to be used as the final step in the grievance procedure. Consequently, there was no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

Petitioner, Ambreco Shaw, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, Petitioner contends that (1) counsel failed to fully investigate all possible defenses; (2) counsel failed to adequately meet with Petitioner and allow him to be involved in his defense; (3) counsel failed to properly convey and explain settlement offers; (4) counsel failed to properly advise Petitioner concerning his right to testify; (5) counsel improperly allowed Petitioner to appear at trial in prison clothing; (6) counsel failed to request a mental evaluation in a timely manner; and (7) counsel failed to cross-examine witnesses and provide proof at the sentencing hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Russel B. Cain, entered a plea of guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual battery of a victim under the age of thirteen, a Class B felony, but reserved a certified question of law to Counts Two and Three of the indictment. Specifically, he requests this
court to review: “If an indictment alleges multiple counts of child sexual abuse, and if the dates of the separate counts are state[d] as ‘the ___ day of _______, 2007,’ does the conviction of Count One of the indictment bar the conviction on Counts Two and Three of
the indictment under the double jeopardy protection of the Constitution.” The defendant also argues that he was improperly sentenced to consecutive sentences. After careful review, we conclude that the conviction on Count One of the indictment does not bar the convictions on subsequent counts of the indictment when the dates of the offenses are stated as “the ___ day of ____, 2007” and that consecutive sentencing was appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.
 

Thomas M. Gautreaux ("Gautreaux") filed a petition pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act for access to a settlement agreement involving Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority ("the Hospital" or "Erlanger") in a previous lawsuit. The Hospital denied the request, claiming that the document was privileged under the Tennessee Peer Review Law. Gautreaux then filed a petition for a show cause hearing. After the hearing, the trial court determined that the settlement agreement was exempt from disclosure under the Peer Review Law. Gautreaux appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Ricky Lee Gann, alias Rickey Lee Gann, pled guilty to seven counts of theft of property valued $1,000 or more, a Class D felony, two counts of theft of property valued $500 or more, a Class E felony, and two counts of theft of property valued $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to an effective six-year term in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by twelve years of probation. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences and in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Karen Koons, was convicted by a Lawrence County jury of driving under the influence, second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. She received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days probation, following service of forty-five days in jail. On appeal, Koons challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion, given existing precedent. I write separately, though, to express my dissatisfaction with the result reached. I believe that once the habeas court concludes that a judgment is void, whether for an illegal conviction or
illegal sentence, it should transfer the case to the convicting court—a court of equal jurisdiction—for further proceedings. The habeas court should not be allowed to act further regarding the convicting case by limiting the options available to the Petitioner or the convicting court after transfer of the case.

This case concerns a complaint for review by writ of certiorari and supersedeas. The initial action was a personal injury suit, arising from an automobile accident in which Plaintiff Charles D. Stechebar's vehicle was allegedly hit by a tractor-trailer owned by Defendant Deere and Company ("Deere") and driven by Defendant John Doe, an unidentified employee of Deere. The personal injury suit was dismissed with prejudice in the general sessions court when the plaintiff failed to appear for the initial trial date. The record reflects that twelve days before the initial trial date, the plaintiff had filed an amended civil summons and obtained a new trial date. Fifty days after the dismissal, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the circuit court, asserting that he had not been notified of the dismissal in time to file an appeal within the ten-day window required by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 27-5-108(a)(1). The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff then filed the complaint for review by statutory writ of certiorari and supersedeas. The circuit court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the writ on the ground that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which review could be granted. We hold that the plaintiff stated a claim for relief under statutory writ of certiorari and supersedeas. The trial court's judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Tracy Lynn Harris, appeals as of right from the Morgan County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

On April 5, 2007, the Defendant, George R. Fyke, pleaded guilty to four counts of forgery, one count of identity theft, and three counts of passing worthless checks. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received an effective six-year sentence to be served in the Community Corrections Program for these convictions. Thereafter, on April 21, 2008, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of identity theft, one count of theft over $10,000, two counts of theft over $1,000, one count of attempted theft, and two counts of forgery. Also on that day, the Defendant admitted his violation of his April 2007 community corrections sentence. The trial court granted the Defendant a furlough to attend and complete a one-year rehabilitation program before sentencing. Following the Defendant's failure to complete the program, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court ordered that the remainder of the Defendant's six-year sentence be served in confinement and, for the April 2008 convictions, imposed an effective eight-year sentence to be served on community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering revocation of his community corrections sentence and that his eight-year sentence his excessive. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. However, we must remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

Appellant Linda M. Moran pled guilty to a 207-count indictment after it was revealed that she had stolen approximately $73,000 from her employer over the course of nearly a decade. At sentencing, Appellant argued that she should be given some form of alternative sentencing. The trial court disagreed and imposed an effective sentence of nine years in custody. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm.

This is the second appeal from a parenting plan entered by the trial court. The only issue in both appeals involved the necessity of a "paramour provision" in the parenting plan. On remand from the first appeal, the trial court was directed by this Court to determine whether a paramour provision was in the best interests of the children. After a hearing, the trial court determined that it was in the best interests of the children to have a paramour provision in effect. Mother appealed. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring a paramour provision as the record is devoid of any evidence to support a finding that the paramour provision is in the best interests of the children. Reversed.

Appellant, Alejandro Chevo Guana, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder for killing Tennessee State Trooper Calvin Jenks during a routine traffic stop. He was sentenced to life in prison. He was also convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, for which he was to serve one year. He appeals, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) limiting his cross-examination of his co-defendant to reveal alleged bias; (2) denying a change of venue; (3) refusing to use his proffered jury questionnaire; (4) denying his request for individual and sequestered voir dire; and (5) finding the evidence sufficient for conviction where, he claims, the only evidence of premeditation was the testimony of his accomplice. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Tenithia Malena, was convicted by a Hardeman County Circuit Court jury of one count of burglary, a Class D felony, and one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony. The trial court approved the sentence recommendation by the State and sentenced Malena as a Range I, standard offender to three years of supervised probation for the burglary conviction. The court also ordered her to pay $20,000 in restitution by April 4, 2008 and ordered her to pay the restitution balance of $34,662.44 in monthly payments of $350.00 starting May 1, 2008. In addition, the trial court sentenced her, pursuant to the State's recommendation, as a Range I, standard offender to six years of supervised probation for the theft conviction, which was to be served consecutively to the burglary conviction, for an effective nine-year probationary sentence. In this appeal, Malena challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence, (2) the admission of her financial records as evidence related to the theft charge, and (3) the trial court's denial of her motion for new trial on the ground that extraneous prejudicial information was considered by the jury. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Joseph Dejuan Webster, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree murder. State v. Joseph Dejuan Webster, No. M2007-00050-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2229208, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 29, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 8, 2008). He received a life sentence for the conviction which was ordered to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. Id. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner filed an amended petition, and the post-conviction court held a hearing. After the hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This appeal involves contested wills and a settlement agreement involving minors. After the death of Billy Joe Stricklan ("Decedent"), his daughter, Teresa Diane Stricklan Coleman ("Daughter"), filed two wills for Probate. Finding the first will valid would result in the entirety of Decedent's estate being awarded to Daughter, while finding the second will valid would result in the estate, minus $100 to Daughter, being divided among Decedent's greatgrandchildren. After the probate court certified the case to circuit court for a will contest, Daughter and the guardian ad litem for the great-grandchildren negotiated a settlement. These parties obtained the probate court's approval of the settlement over the objection of the proponent of second will, Decedent's brother, Reed Stricklan ("Brother"). The probate court also ordered a partial distribution of the cash assets now held in the estate to Daughter. Brother appeals. We vacate the settlement order.