APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

After revoking the defendant's community corrections sentence, the trial court increased the length of the defendant's sentence from six to eight years and ordered that the sentence be served consecutively to a sentence in an unrelated case. Although the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, we granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal and remanded the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of our decision in State v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1999). The Court of Criminal Appeals again affirmed the trial court's judgment. After considering the record, we conclude that upon revoking the community corrections sentence, the trial court held a proper sentencing hearing and did not err either in increasing the length of the defendant's sentence or in ordering that the sentence be served consecutively. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Murray E. Body ("Plaintiff") filed this personal injury suit against the owner of a jet ski, Jim Lamarr ("Defendant"). Plaintiff sustained physical injuries while pulling ski ropes into his boat when Defendant's jet ski ran over Plaintiff's ski ropes. Plaintiff had a boating policy ("Policy") with Continental Insurance Company ("Continental") which had uninsured boater limits of $100,000. Defendant had a liability policy with limits of $50,000. Plaintiff contends that his damages exceed Defendant's limits and that his Policy should be interpreted to provide coverage for accidents involving underinsured boaters. Continental filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Policy's language clearly and unambiguously does not provide coverage for underinsured boaters. The Trial Court treated Continental's motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the motion. Plaintiff was granted an interlocutory appeal. We affirm.

I concur in the result reached and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. However, I believe that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury being instructed regarding voluntary manslaughter. I agree, though, that the failure to instruct the jury was harmless.

The defendant, Robert Lee Pattee, appeals as of right following his conviction by a jury in the Sumner County Criminal Court for first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. Defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (2) whether the trial court erred when it determined Defendant’s suicide note was inadmissible at trial; and (3) whether the evidence of premeditation was sufficient to convict him of first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. Petitioner pled guilty to selling cocaine over 0.5 grams and received a sentence of eight years. He contends the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel leading to his guilty plea, (2) an involuntary guilty plea, and (3) failure of trial counsel to perfect an appeal of the sentence. We affirm the post-conviction court with regard to the validity of the guilty plea; however, we grant a delayed appeal based upon trial counsel's failure to take any action regarding an appeal of the sentence.

This appeal involves a post-judgment receivership proceeding commenced while the case was pending on appeal. The seller of a large tract of Brentwood property obtained a judgment against the defaulting purchaser in the Chancery Court for Williamson County. While the purchaser's appeal was pending, the seller proceeded to execute on its judgment and requested the trial court to appoint a receiver to protect the interests of the purchaser's creditors. After the trial court appointed a receiver, the purchaser's former law firm filed a claim with the receiver for over $100,000 in unpaid legal expenses. When the seller's judgment against the purchaser was satisfied outside of the receivership proceeding, the trial court granted the receiver's motion to dissolve the receivership without addressing the law firm's claim. The law firm asserts on this appeal that the trial court should not have closed the receivership until its claim was addressed. We have determined that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to establish the receivership and, therefore, that the receivership proceedings were null and void. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by declining to address the law firm's claim in the receivership proceeding.

This appeal involves a dispute over the division of a marital estate following a marriage that lasted approximately two and one-half years. Both parties sought a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct in the Circuit Court for Franklin County. During a bench trial lasting two days, the parties stipulated that they both had grounds for divorce but hotly contested the classification, valuation, and division of their marital and separate property. The trial court declared the parties divorced and divided their property without clearly classifying or placing a value on it. On this appeal, the wife asserts that the trial court erred by considering the husband's contributions to the marital home as his separate property and that the net division of the marital estate was inequitable. Despite the ambiguity resulting from the trial court's failure to classify and value the parties' property, we have determined that the trial court's division of the martial estate was essentially equitable.

This is the second appeal regarding the setting of the amount of the father's child support obligation for four children. In the earlier appeal, this court remanded for a determination of the father's actual net income and his corresponding child support obligation. On remand, the trial court in early 2000 based its award of prospective support on an average of father's income in 1992 through 1995 and established the father's back support based on that figure. We find that the prospective award should be set on the most current income figures, but that an average of the most recent years is appropriate. We also find that the amount of back child support should be computed using actual income for the intervening years. Because the record does not contain sufficient information regarding challenged deductions from gross income for the years now at issue, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on the father's income in the years since the divorce in 1996, and a redetermination of both prospective and back support. We affirm the denial of prejudgment interest.

Linda Gail Philpot entered “best interest” pleas to forty-one counts of forgery. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, Philpot received an effective sentence of fourteen years. The manner of service, including entitlement to probation, was submitted to the trial court. The trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing based upon its finding of lack of remorse and poor prospects for rehabilitation. On appeal, Philpot argues that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence.  After review, we conclude that a sentence of split confinement will best serve the interests of the public and the Appellant. The judgment, accordingly, is reversed and remanded for entry of a sentence of split confinement reflecting a period of thirty-five days confinement in the local jail or workhouse with the remainder of the effective fourteen-year sentence to be served on supervised probation.

I concur that a sentencing alternative of split confinement should be utilized in the present case; however, I respectfully disagree that confinement for 35 days is appropriate. A consecutive sentence of 20 days confinement for each count would be more in line with the sentence approved by this court in the remarkably similar case of State v. Cynthia D. Stacey, No. 03C01-9803-CC-00091 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, May 24, 1999) (approving 180 days of confinement followed by two years of community corrections, for defendant who, as a home health care worker, stole money from an elderly couple in her care). The cases are very similar, and in light of Cynthia D. Stacey, the present case, on its own facts, suggests a more punitive, deterrent sentence than 35 days in confinement. Thus, I would extend the confinement portion of the sentence to an aggregate of 140 days.

The petitioner, William Ronald Jordan, was convicted by a jury in the Giles County Circuit Court of driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI") and attempted robbery. The trial court sentenced Petitioner as a multiple Range II offender to six years for the attempted robbery conviction and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the DUI conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. This court affirmed Petitioner's convictions on direct appeal, and Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition, with two amendments, for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied Petitioner relief. In this appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on the following grounds: (1) counsel failed to submit adequate evidence at the hearing on his motion to dismiss based upon denial of his right to a speedy trial; (2) counsel's advice to Petitioner not to testify at trial deprived him of a jury instruction on renunciation as a defense; and (3) counsel failed to object when the State filed an untimely motion for enhanced punishment under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.3. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

This appeal involves two shootings during an attempted armed robbery of a restaurant, that left one man dead and one man wounded. The parents of the deceased victim and the wounded victim and his wife filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County against the restaurant and the persons who attempted to rob the restaurant, alleging that the restaurant had negligently failed to use reasonable care to protect its patrons from foreseeable harm. The trial court granted the restaurant a summary judgment and dismissed the negligence claim against it. The plaintiffs, relying on McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership, 937 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1996), assert on this appeal that the trial court erred by granting the restaurant's summary judgment motion. We concur with the trial court's conclusion that the material facts are not in dispute and that the restaurant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because it demonstrated that the plaintiffs would be unable to prove an essential element of their case. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the claims against the restaurant.

In this workers' compensation case, the trial court awarded Bobby R. George 90% permanent partial disability for loss of hearing in both ears. Mr. George's employer, Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation ("GAF"), filed a post-judgment motion for leave to amend its answer to allege a statute of limitations defense. The trial court denied the motion. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel ("the Panel") reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to amend the answer and remanded the case for further proceedings on the statute of limitations defense. The Panel also reduced the award to 50% permanent partial disability should the statute of limitations defense be unsuccessful on remand. We disagree with the Panel's recommendation and affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

Plaintiffs in this matter have alleged that their employment was terminated in violation of Tennessee's Public Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 51-1-304. The trial court ruled in favor of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed this case in its entirety finding that all three Plaintiffs had failed to prove that their termination was based solely on "whistle blowing". We affirm the trial court's decision in this regard.

We granted review of this child visitation case to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering unrestricted overnight visitation with the mother. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had abused its discretion and imposed restrictions prohibiting the presence of the mother's lesbian partner during overnight visitation. We hold that the record does not support a finding of an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Michael Shawn Shofner appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his "Motion to Void Judgment," in which he seeks relief under Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 from an order declaring that he is an habitual motor vehicle offender. He claims on appeal that the habitual motor vehicle offender order is void because (1) no summons was attached to the show cause order served upon him to notify him of the habitual motor vehicle offender proceedings, and (2) the state failed to obtain an alias summons after process was not returned within thirty days of entry of the show cause order. We hold that Shofner's motion for relief under Rule 60.02 is untimely. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Clarence Davis, was convicted by a jury of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. On direct appeal, this Court reduced the Defendant's conviction to second degree murder and remanded the case for re-sentencing. State v. Clarence Davis, No. 01C01-9811-CR-00451, 1999 WL 737873, at *1, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, September 22, 1999). After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of twenty-five years. The trial court further ordered the Defendant to serve this sentence consecutively to a previously imposed sentence in a case wherein Defendant's sentence to community corrections had been revoked. The Defendant now appeals contending: 1) the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence for second degree murder and 2) the trial court erred in ordering his sentence to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence in an unrelated case. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the length of the sentence and the order of consecutive sentencing, but remand for a determination of the amount of pretrial jail credit to which the Defendant is entitled.

The defendant appeals the trial court's six-year sentence of total confinement and denial of any form of an alternative sentence. After review, we reverse the trial court's order of total confinement and denial of any form of an alternative sentence. We remand the case to the trial court to order the defendant to serve a sentence of split confinement with one (1) year of incarceration and the remaining five (5) years on supervised probation with restitution as a condition of probation.