APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellants, Aaron Bonding Company, T Bonding Company, and Around the Clock Bonding Company, LLC, appeal the order of a final forfeiture against them, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order. Following our review of the record, we dismiss this appeal as being premature and remand the case to the trial court to issue an order of final disposition  appellants may then appeal.

The Defendant, Timothy Mark Agee, II, appeals his conviction upon a guilty plea in the Davidson County Criminal Court for second degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twenty-three years. The Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed is too lengthy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves delay of service of process. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, alleging medical malpractice by the defendants almost a year earlier. The plaintiffs delayed service on the defendants until they had an expert witness review their claim. Summonses were issued to the defendants over eleven months after the complaint was filed. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, alleging insufficiency of service of process, and asserting that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion. The defendants appeal. We reverse and remand for entry of an order dismissing the complaint, finding that the delay of prompt service of process rendered the filing of the complaint ineffective to commence the action and stop the running of the statute of limitations.

The Defendants, Kenneth Miller and Ray Junior Turner, were convicted by a Davidson County jury of conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine and delivery of 300 grams or more of cocaine. Additionally, the Defendant Miller was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine. All convictions are Class A felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. _ 39-17-417(j)(5). Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant Miller to an effective sentence of one hundred and twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender; the trial court ordered all three of his forty-year sentences to be served consecutively to one another. As for the Defendant Turner, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of sixty years as a career offender, running both of his sixty-year sentences concurrently with one another. On appeal, the Defendant Miller presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence gathered via wiretaps; (2) whether it was error to allow a State's witness to "field-test" a substance found on an exhibit; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support verdicts for conspiracy and delivery of 300 grams or more of cocaine; and (4) whether the trial court committed sentencing errors. The Defendant Turner, in addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions, argues that: (1) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain "drug ledgers" found in his apartment; and (2) the telephone calls intercepted during the wiretap investigation, purported to contain the Defendant's voice, were, in fact, inadmissible hearsay. After a review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This is a premises liability case. The plaintiff worker allegedly injured his knee while in the defendants’ home. The plaintiff visited a doctor the next day, and ultimately had surgery on the knee the next month. Subsequently, the plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging premises liability. A jury trial was held. After the testimony concluded, the trial court declined to include a jury instruction requested by the plaintiff. During closing arguments, the plaintiff’s attorney started to read from a deposition that had not been entered into evidence; the trial court sustained a timely objection. Also during closing argument, the closing remarks of the defendant’s attorney alerted the plaintiff’s attorney to the fact that a particular medical record was not a part of the evidence submitted to the jury. While the jury was deliberating, the plaintiff sought to reopen proof to admit into evidence the omitted medical record; the trial court declined to reopen the proof. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves the alleged breach of an insurance policy. The plaintiff insured had an automobile insurance policy with the defendant insurance company. The insured paid his insurance premium by check. He subsequently was involved in an automobile accident and notified the insurance company of the accident. The check was later returned for insufficient funds. The insurance company notified the insured that if he did not bring the premium current by a date certain, his insurance policy would be cancelled. The insured gave the insurance company a valid check for the premium, which was negotiated. The insurance company later cancelled the policy, retroactive to a date prior to the insured’s automobile accident. The insured sued the insurance company for breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff  insured. The insurance company appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Steven Murphy, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder, which the trial court merged, and two counts of theft of property valued at more than $ 1000, which the court also merged. He was sentenced to an effective life sentence. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences, and the supreme court denied his application for permission to appeal. State v. Steven Murphy, No. W2004-02899-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 171, 2006 WL 432388 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 22, 2006), perm. to appeal denied [*2] 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 834 (Tenn. Sept. 5, 2006). He filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition; and, upon review, we affirm that denial.

Appellant, Hyman E. Miller, pled guilty in Rutherford County to vehicular assault and second offense driving under the influence ("DUI"). Appellant was sentenced to eight years for the vehicular assault conviction. That sentence was suspended and the trial court ordered Appellant placed on supervised probation for a period of ten years. Appellant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second offense DUI conviction. He received pre-trial jail credit of seven months and twenty-two days. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve this sentence on supervised probation for a period of four months and twenty-two days. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed against Appellant. The trial court revoked probation, ordering Appellant to serve sixty days in jail before being reinstated to probation. A second violation of probation warrant was filed against Appellant, alleging that Appellant had violated his probation in various ways. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in incarceration. Appellant appeals the trial court's revocation of probation. Because we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's probation, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I join in the results reached by the majority. I write separately to note that the sentence imposed by the trial court does not comport with the sentencing guidelines and to further analyze a difference between Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-306 and 40-35-501.

The petitioner, Jermaine Hughey, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Matthew I. Tart, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of alternative sentencing following his pleas of guilty to charges of violating the motor vehicle habitual offender law, speeding, and leaving the scene of an accident. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but we remand for the trial court to consider amendments to the judgments.

A Davidson County jury found the Defendant, Roderick Sammual Chadwick, guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent terms of twelve years and fifteen years, respectively, for these convictions. Under the same indictment, the Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a weapon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six years for this conviction, to be served consecutively to the effective fifteen-year sentence, for a total effective sentence of twentyone years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that consecutive sentencing was improper. Because the record on appeal does not include the necessary transcripts of what transpired in the trial court, we conclude that the Defendant has waived the issues argued on appeal. We must presume that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions and that the sentencing ruling of the trial court was correct; therefore, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant, George Ward, appeals his resentencing following the revocation of his eight-year community corrections sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum twelve-year sentence for his Class B felony drug offense of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. Following our review, we affirm the twelve-year sentence imposed by the trial court.

The petitioner, Tommy Lee Clark, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper cross-examination and for not investigating the petitioner's mental competency. The State argues that the petitioner has waived appellate review of these issues by not including them in his petition for post-conviction relief. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate seeking review of his disciplinary conviction for assaulting a fellow inmate. TDOC did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and the certified record was filed with the trial court. Upon review of the record, the trial court denied the petition, and we affirm.

This appeal involves a judgment creditor’s attempt to enforce a Mississippi default judgment in the general sessions court of Shelby County. The trial court concluded that the general sessions court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, and it set aside a conditional judgment entered by the general sessions court based on the Mississippi judgment. The judgment creditor appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves the breach of a real estate contract. The plaintiff hired the defendant  auctioneer to sell his home at auction. After the defendant corporate purchaser was the high bidder at the auction, it signed a sales contract and made a substantial down payment on the property. The down payment was retained by the auctioneer as his commission. Shortly after that, the auctioneer promised the purchaser that the purchaser’s real estate agent would be paid a commission on the sale. Later, the defendant auctioneer refused to pay the purchaser’s agent a commission and, consequently, the purchaser refused to close on the sale. The auctioneer retained the earnest money. The seller filed this lawsuit against the purchaser for failing to close on the sale, and against the auctioneer for breach of fiduciary duty. The purchaser filed a counterclaim against the seller and a cross-claim against the auctioneer for breach of contract. All of the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the seller against the purchaser, but held in favor of the auctioneer against the seller. The trial court ordered the purchaser to pay damages to the seller for its breach of the sales agreement and permitted the auctioneer to retain the earnest money. The purchaser now appeals. We affirm, rejecting the purchaser’s claim of fraudulent inducement, and concluding that the seller is entitled to damages pursuant to the plain language of the sales agreement.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate seeking review of his disciplinary conviction for assaulting a fellow inmate. TDOC did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and the certified record was filed with the trial court. Upon review of the record, the trial court denied the petition, and we affirm.

This appeal involves a judgment creditor's attempt to enforce a Mississippi default judgment in the general sessions court of Shelby County. The trial court concluded that the general sessions court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, and it set aside a conditional judgment entered by the general sessions court based on the Mississippi judgment. The judgment creditor appeals. We affirm.

This is an appeal of a jury verdict. The plaintiff was hunting with his son. The defendant was also hunting in the general area, and accidentally shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for negligence, and included a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of his son. The parties stipulated as to the defendant's liability, and a jury trial was held on the issue of damages. The jury instructions included instructions on the plaintiff father's mental pain and suffering and the son's emotional injury, but did not separately address the plaintiff father's emotional injury. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff father as well as an award for the son's emotional injury. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and approved the verdict. The defendant now appeals. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict on several elements of damages, and argues that the inconsistency in the jury instructions on emotional injury necessitates a new trial. We affirm in part, vacate in part, suggest remittitur as to the awards for future medical expenses and for emotional injury, and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, Bruce C. Reliford, entered guilty pleas to aggravated robbery charges, following a remand, and was convicted by a jury of felony murder. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the felony murder conviction and twelve years for each aggravated robbery conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends that: the trial court improperly allowed evidence to be introduced at trial; his statement to police was not given voluntarily; and the trial court erred in accepting his guilty pleas and in setting his sentence. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

Petitioner, Raymond Long, Jr., 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 challenges trial counsel's failure to call certain witnesses to testify at trial on his behalf. 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.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Christopher Lee Davis, was found guilty of aggravated robbery, carjacking, attempt to commit especially aggravated kidnapping, all Class B felonies, and attempt to commit premeditated first degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twelve years for each Class B felony conviction and twenty-five years for his attempted premeditated first degree murder conviction. The trial court imposed a combination of consecutive and concurrent sentencing for an effective sentence of forty-nine years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted premeditated first degree murder; (3) the trial court erred in determining the length of his sentences; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review, we affirm Defendant's convictions and the length of his sentences. We remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing solely for the purpose of determining whether consecutive sentencing is appropriate under the Sentencing Act and State v. Allen, 259 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. 2008).