APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal concerns post-divorce parenting time. In the first appeal in this case, this Court reviewed the trial court’s denial of any parenting time for the appellant father with his daughter. This Court remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether parenting time
with the father would result in substantial harm to the parties’ daughter. On remand, the trial court held a hearing in which the evidence consisted of the mother’s testimony on her observations of the daughter’s reaction when the topic of the father arose. Based on this, the trial court again denied both supervised and unsupervised visitation to the father, and enjoined the father from contacting his daughter in any fashion. The father appeals. We find the evidence insufficient to support complete denial of parenting time, vacate the trial court’s order, and remand the case for further proceedings before a different trial judge.

This appeal involves the exclusion of expert testimony. The plaintiff employee filed a lawsuit against the defendant railroad employer pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, seeking compensation arising out of alleged work-related injuries. The parties took the depositions of two experts for the plaintiff, an ergonomist and her treating orthopedic surgeon. The railroad subsequently filed motions in limine to exclude the testimony of the two experts, as well as a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motions in limine, excluding the testimony of both experts. It then granted summary judgment in favor of the railroad. The employee appeals the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony of her experts. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. The trial court merged the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction into the aggravated assault conviction and sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of seventeen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury by failing to instruct the jury about voluntary intoxication and by misstating the definition of attempt; (2) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences; (3) the assistant district attorney committed misconduct by repeatedly using a racial slur to inflame the jury; and (4) the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant testimony. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
 

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Bobby Lee Robinson, of possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class A felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The jury convicted the Defendant, Jamie Nathaniel Grimes, of possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class A felony; possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Robinson to seventeen years as a standard offender for the cocaine offense, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor offense, with all of the sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court sentenced Grimes to thirty years as a multiple offender for the cocaine offense and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor offense, ordering all of the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, Robinson argues that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce a redacted tape recording and transcript of statements he made during his arrest; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Grimes argues that the trial court erred when it: (1) improperly admitted evidence about the weight of the cocaine; (2) denied his motion for disclosure of the confidential informant’s identity; and (3) admitted a transcript of a recorded conversation between him and the confidential informant into evidence. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as to both Defendants.

The Petitioner, Gary Wayne Garrett, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that his convictions are void. Upon a review of the record in this case, we conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Javis Montell Dean, pled guilty to possession of a schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and introduction of contraband into a penal facility, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eight years and ordered that the Defendant serve one year incarcerated and serve the remainder in the community corrections program. As part of the Defendant’s pleas, he reserved a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions.

The Defendant, Richard Paul Brady, pled guilty to burglary, a Class D felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a multiple offender, to concurrent terms of four years for the burglary conviction and eight years for the aggravated assault conviction, to be served in community corrections after service of one year in the workhouse. A violation warrant was issued, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community correction sentence, finding that he had violated the terms of his sentence and ordered him to serve his original sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in prison. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a Petition for Writ of Common Law Certiorari or in the Alternative Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by a former inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction.The petition alleges that several agencies or individuals who were not named defendants in the petition imposed two allegedly “illegal” sentences upon him, thus, violating his civil rights. The sentences expired in 1999 and 2000, respectively. The petition was filed in 2009. The pertinent statute of limitations is a one-year statute. Thus, the petition is time barred and the dismissal of the petition on that ground is affirmed. We have also determined the issues are moot.
 

The Petitioner, Xavier Tyrell Barham, pled guilty to three counts of possession of Schedule II controlled substance with intent to deliver, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sixteen-year sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he understood the plea agreement to be that all of his sentences would run concurrently for a total effective sentence of eight years rather than sixteen years. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Sisavanh Keomongkout, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for second degree murderand attempted first degree murder and his effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1)failing to provide the Petitioner with discovery materials before the Petitioner entered his guilty pleas, (2) failing to discuss the definition of first degree murder and lesser included offenses with the Petitioner, and (3) failing to inform the Petitioner that he could hire an expert witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the removal of Plaintiff’s political signs from public property by employees of the Defendant City of Memphis pursuant to a sign ordinance. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the sign ordinance was  unconstitutional, and further alleged that he was entitled to damages for the removal and disposal of his signs under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the City, upholding the constitutionality of the sign ordinance. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to include additional claims challenging the constitutionality of the sign ordinance. In response, the City filed a motion for summary judgment arguing Plaintiff’s remaining claims under the GTLA were time barred by the one-year statute of limitations. After conducting a hearing on the motions, the trial court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, and granted the City's motion for summary judgment, resulting in dismissal of the action. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City was proper. Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiffs sued the City of Memphis, claiming that they were fraudulently induced to sign a
sewer easement agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of
Memphis. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Petitioner pled guilty in March 2000 to charges of first degree murder and aggravated rape. He accepted a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and a concurrent twenty-year sentence for the aggravated rape conviction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief following the entry of an amended judgment order of conviction imposing community supervision for life for the aggravated rape conviction. The post-conviction court summarily denied relief. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Cameron General Contractors, Inc., a Nebraska corporation (“Cameron”), sued Kingston Pike, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company (“Kingston Pike”), for breach of a contract concerning the sale of real property located in Knoxville, Tennessee. Prior to trial, Cameron elected to exercise its contractual right to terminate the contract, and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the contract did not limit Cameron to the return of its earnest money, and granting Cameron a judgment against Kingston Pike for damages in the amount of $872,418.22, plus attorney’s fees of $137,656.56. Kingston Pike appeals to this Court. We find and hold that the contract at issue clearly and unambiguously provides that once Cameron chose to terminate the contract, Cameron’s sole remedy for Kingston Pike’s breach was a return of Cameron’s earnest money deposit. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s October 28, 2010 order.

An employee suffered a partial amputation of his left index finger. Compensability of the injury was not contested. At trial, the employee argued that his disability award should be apportioned to the hand. His employer contended that the award should be limited to the index finger. The trial court agreed with the employee and awarded 52% permanent partial disability to the hand. The employer appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The employee injured her back at work and the injury required surgical treatment. The employee returned to work but was later terminated for violation of her employer’s attendance and absenteeism policy. The trial court found the employee did not have a meaningful return to work. The trial court, however, adopted the impairment rating that the employee’s evaluating physician expressed and awarded 90% permanent partial disability benefits, the maximum award permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d). The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by adopting the evaluating physician’s impairment rating, by its use of the six-times multiplier on the basis of facts not in evidence, and by finding that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work. We agree that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings concerning employee’s impairment and the six-times multiplier. Accordingly, we modify the award.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Anthony Bernard Garrett, of simple possession or casual exchange of cocaine, fourth offense, and resisting arrest, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of six years. On appeal,the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for resisting arrest; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Marcus Terry, appeals the Circuit Court of Lake County’s denial of his prose petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, William A. Howard, pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court entered an agreed sentence of twenty-five years, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends: that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because his counsel did not inform him of the consequences of his plea and because he coerced him into pleading guilty. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists no error. We, therefore, affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Brett Joseph Price, pled guilty to robbery, a Class C felony, and conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-401, 39-12-103 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years for robbery and to three years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest statements and by admitting a statement at the sentencing hearing, and (2) imposing an excessive sentence and denying an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

An employee alleged that she sustained a right- and left-side hernia while working. Her employer denied the claim for the left-side hernia. The trial court held that both the right- and left-side hernias were compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. The employer appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Joe Clark Mitchell, was convicted in 1986 of multiple offenses following a violent crime spree against two women. On March 8, 2011, the Petitioner filed a pro se writ of error coram nobis alleging the existence of newly discovered evidence. Specifically, the Petitioner alleged that, in 2010, his trial judge was “found guilty of illegally expunging” the criminal records of convicted felons in exchange for a fee. The Petitioner also alleged that because he “did not have sufficient funds to pay for a legal sentence,” he received a sentence that was “illegal and void.” Lastly, the Petitioner alleged that his trial judge improperly sentenced him as a persistent offender. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court summarilydismissed the petition. On appeal,the Petitioner argues that the coram nobis court erred by dismissing his petition without a hearing. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The order appealed in this matter is not a final judgment. Appellant failed to respond to this Court's Order permitting Appellant to obtain entry of a final judgment or else show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment.  Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this post-conviction appeal Petitioner Leonard Edward Smith challenges his 1985 conviction and life sentence for the first degree felony murder of John Pierce, his 1989 conviction for the first degree felony murder of Novella Webb, and his 1995 death sentence for the Webb murder. We affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence for the Pierce murder, holding that Smith’s post-conviction claims in the Pierce case were barred by the statute of limitations and that the statute should not be equitably tolled. We affirm Smith’s conviction for the Webb murder, holding that Smith did not demonstrate that he suffered prejudice resulting from his counsel’s ineffective assistance in failing to adequately question the potential jurors during voir dire at his 1989 trial in the Webb case regarding their past experiences either as a victim or with a victim of crime. We vacate Smith’s death sentence, holding that Smith’s counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to adequately investigate and present evidence supporting his motion to recuse the judge at his resentencing hearing, which resulted in a denial of Smith’s due process right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. We further hold that Smith is entitled to a new hearing on the question of whether he was intellectually disabled at the time of the Webb murder because the post-conviction court and the Court of Criminal Appeals applied an incorrect legal standard in determining Smith’s functional intelligence quotient (I.Q.) under the principles recently espoused in Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221, 230 (Tenn. 2011).

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a default judgment. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.