APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Cumberland Bail Bonding Company, appeals the Roane County Criminal Court’s denial of its petitions to write bonds in the Criminal Courts of the Ninth Judicial District. On appeal, the Appellant argues that because it met all the necessary qualifications for bonding companies, the trial court’s order withholding approval for it to write bonds should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to approve it to write bonds as requested or with instructions to implement the procedures outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-125 in an expedited fashion. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for entry of an order approving the Appellant to write bonds in the Ninth Judicial District.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and one count of driving with a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor, while reserving a certified question of law concerning the constitutionality of a city ordinance requiring vehicles operating within the municipality to have a “tag light” illuminating the vehicle’s license plate after dark. The defendant was sentenced to eight years probation on the possession charge and to a concurrent six months probation for driving with a suspended license. Upon review, we conclude that the certified question reserved by the defendant is not dispositive of the constitutionality of the traffic stop at issue. The defendant’s appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Appellant, Colby Terrell Black, was serving an effective twelve-year suspended sentence imposed as a result of his 2007, 2008, and 2010 guilty pleas to aggravated assault, two counts of sale of cocaine, and a second aggravated assault, respectively. He was arrested in 2011 for aggravated domestic assault. The trial court held a revocation hearing, after which it revoked appellant’s probation and ordered execution of his sentences. He successfully appealed the trial court’s order on the basis that the trial court failed to set forth the evidence it relied upon in ordering revocation and did not address the allegation that appellant had committed a new offense. The trial court complied with this court’s directive and filed an extensive order detailing the reasons for revocation. Appellant again appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by not considering his mental state at the time of the offense and by failing to find that the preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation. Upon our review, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a dispute over grandparent visitation. Whitney Nichole Huffman Lewis (“Mother”) is the mother of the minor child Isaiah Huffman (“the Child”). Billy W. Huffman and Lora D. Huffman (“the Grandparents,” collectively), father and stepmother of Mother, filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Loudon County (“the Trial Court”) to establish visitation rights with the Child. The Child had visited often with the Grandparents, but Mother ended the visits after a falling out with Mr. Huffman. Following a trial, the Trial Court denied the Grandparents’ petition after finding there was no significant relationship between the Grandparents and the Child and that there was no risk of substantial harm to the Child. The Grandparents appeal to this Court. We find and hold that while the Grandparents and the Child did have a significant existing relationship, the Grandparents failed to prove that cessation of this relationship would pose a danger of substantial harm to the Child. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as modified.

Troy Reynolds (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty in February 2012 to evading arrest by vehicle, theft of property valued at over $1,000, and burglary. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to an effective sentence of three years to be suspended and served on supervised probation, consecutive to an earlier suspended sentence. The State later filed a violation of probation warrant. The Defendant was taken into custody, and a probation revocation hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The Defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Stanley B. Hill, was convicted by a Blount County jury of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife, Vickie Hill, and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error by: (1) allowing the medical examiner to use demonstrative evidence that was inherently unreliable, unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, and not disclosed to defense counsel prior to trial and (2) excluding a piece of physical evidence as a sanction for his violation of the reciprocal discovery obligations under Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Cumberland County jury convicted the Petitioner, Gary Thomas Reed, of initiating the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Gary Thomas Reed, No. E2009-02238-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1842711 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug. 24, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 24, 2011). The Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that his attorney failed to call an exculpatory witness at trial and failed to object to a violation of the sequestration rule. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Jerry Whiteside Dickerson, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus regarding his convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, for which he is serving an effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A six-year-old boy’s spine was fractured in a car wreck when the force of the impact caused him to jackknife over his lap seatbelt and pushed the seatbelt into his stomach and against his spine. The child’s mother filed suit on his behalf against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), alleging that the defective design of the seatbelt and Ford’s failure to warn of a potential danger caused the child’s permanent paralysis and other enhanced injuries. A jury returned a $43.8 million verdict for compensatory damages, finding Ford to be 15% at fault and two non-parties 85% at fault. Ford’s share of the verdict, based on its degree of fault, was $6,570,000. The jury awarded no punitive damages. Ford moved for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was excessive. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and affirmed the verdict in its capacity as thirteenth juror. The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, ruled that the verdict was excessive and remanded to the trial court with a suggestion of remittitur from $43.8 million to $12.9 million, a 70.55% reduction. The suggested remittitur, if the plaintiff accepted it, would reduce Ford’s share of the verdict to $1,935,000. Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., No. W2010-01493-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 1264454, at *18-21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012). We hold that the Court of Appeals had the authority to suggest a remittitur even though Ford did not request a remittitur. We further hold that the Court of Appeals erred in remitting the verdict to $12.9 million. Having taken the strongest legitimate view of all the material evidence in favor of the verdict, assuming the truth of all that supports it, allowing all reasonable inferences, and discarding any to the contrary, we hold that the jury’s verdict was supported by material evidence and was within the range of reasonableness. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the jury’s verdict is reinstated.
 

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on Amelia M., the minor child (“Child”) of James M. (“Father”) and Bethany L. (“Mother”). On September 14, 2011, Mother filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father, which was subsequently joined by Mother’s new husband, William H. (“Stepfather”). Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had abandoned the Child by willfully failing to visit her and willfully failing to provide financial support in the four months preceding the filing of the petition. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm.

Petitioner, Adrian Curb, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, or in the alternative, a petition for writ of error coram nobis, challenging the conviction resulting from his 1997 guilty plea to aggravated assault. As grounds for relief, he claimed that his attempted first degree murder indictment was improperly amended to aggravated assault, thus coercing him into involuntarily pleading guilty to the amended charge. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition because petitioner failed to establish an exception to the one-year statute of limitation for petitions for post-conviction relief. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite factors for newly discovered evidence as required for writ of error coram nobis relief. Following our review, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Eric Cathey, filed in the Shelby County Criminal Court a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of felony murder and aggravated child abuse, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a dispute over grandparent visitation. Whitney Nichole Huffman Lewis (“Mother”) is the mother of the minor child Isaiah Huffman (“the 1 Child”). Billy W. Huffman and Lora D. Huffman (“the Grandparents,” collectively), father and stepmother of Mother, filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Loudon County (“the Trial Court”) to establish visitation rights with the Child. The Child had visited often with the Grandparents, but Mother ended the visits after a falling out with Mr. Huffman. Following a trial, the Trial Court denied the Grandparents’ petition after finding there was no significant relationship between the Grandparents and the Child and that there was no risk of substantial harm to the Child. The Grandparents appeal to this Court. We find and hold that while the Grandparents and the Child did have a significant existing relationship, the Grandparents failed to prove that cessation of this relationship would pose a danger of substantial harm to the Child. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as modified.

This appeal involves a self-represented litigant’s continued efforts to occupy property which is the subject of foreclosure proceedings. After dismissal of his second action regarding the property, the appellant files this appeal. We dismiss the appeal for failure to file a brief that complies with the appellate rules and conclude that this is a frivolous appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-1-122.
 

James M. Bowley and Barbara A. Bowley (“Plaintiffs”) sued Richard Lane, Alvin Butler, and Danny Nicholson (“Defendants”) alleging defective construction of a log home built by Defendants for Plaintiffs. After trial, the Trial Court entered judgment upon the jury’s verdict finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendants had breached the implied warranty of habitability, and that Plaintiffs had sustained $50,000 in damages as a result of this breach. Defendants appeal to this Court raising an issue regarding whether the Trial Court erred in approving the verdict and denying their motion for new trial or for remittitur. Plaintiffs also raise an issue alleging that the evidence does not support the verdict. We find and hold that material evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and further find no error in the Trial Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for new trial or for remittitur, and the Trial Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial or for additur. We affirm.

Sheila Dunlap (“plaintiff”) brought this action alleging liability for the wrongful death of her daughter (“deceased”) on the part of the nursing home operated by Laurel Manor Health Care, Inc. (“defendant”) where deceased was living. Although the allegations of the complaint were couched in terms of ordinary negligence, the trial court determined that the cause of action was one for medical malpractice. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122, which requires the filing a certificate of good faith with a medical malpractice complaint. We hold that the plaintiff’s claims that the nursing home failed to properly administer medication and a medical device prescribed by a physician, and failed to monitor the medical condition of the deceased at all times prior to her death, sound in medical malpractice. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court dismissed this action for professional malpractice based upon the running of the statute of limitations. We affirm.

This appeal involves the interpretation of an exclusionary clause in an automobile casualty insurance policy. The policy excluded coverage for a loss resulting from an accident occurring while the vehicle was being driven by an unlisted driver who “is a regular or frequent operator of” an insured vehicle. Caleb Jenkins, who was not listed in the policy as a “driver,” was involved in an accident while driving the vehicle of Kelly Weed (“Insured”). Insured brought suit after First Acceptance Insurance Company of Tennessee, Inc., (“Insurer”) denied her claim. Insurer moved for summary judgment, alleging that Jenkins was a regular and frequent operator of Insured’s vehicle. Based on Insured’s statement that Jenkins was a “fairly regular” driver of her vehicle who had been driving it once or twice a week for six months, the trial court denied coverage and granted Insurer summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s judgment that the policy excluded coverage because Insured’s admission establishes that Jenkins was a “regular or frequent operator” of her vehicle.

This is an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, from the trial court’s grant of a mistrial based upon a “manifest necessity.” The Defendant, Lamar Parrish Carter, appeals the trial court’s ruling, arguing that his attorney’s cross-examination of a co-defendant about her range of punishment, which was also the range of punishment for the Defendant, was not improper and did not warrant a mistrial. After a thorough review of the record and the relevant law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Stanley Abernathy James, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, for which he is serving a twenty-five-year sentence. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which holds the trial court did not err by denying the appellant’s motion to suppress his statement. I disagree with the remaining parts of the opinion and therefore would affirm all the judgments of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Josh L. Bowman, of three counts of first degree felony murder, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of especially aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After the jury announced its verdicts, the appellant pled guilty to one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony when, at the time of the offense, the appellant had a prior felony conviction. The trial court merged the murder convictions, merged the burglary convictions, merged the employing a firearm convictions, and sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of life plus sixty years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement to police, by allowing the State to show a transcript of his statement simultaneously with his video-recorded statement, and by failing to instruct the jury as provided by State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court’s failing to instruct the jury properly pursuant to White constitutes reversible error. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping must be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial as to that offense.

Homeowners’ association filed suit against general contractor because of drainage issues alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and breach of the implied warranty of “good and workmanlike” construction. The trial court found in favor of homeowners’ association. The general contractor appeals. We affirm.

In two separate cases, the Defendant, Amber R. Galemore, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and to theft of property. She was sentenced to an effective sentence of eight years on probation. As part of the Defendant’s plea agreement, she reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The question is articulated in the record as, “Whether the search warrant issued by a General Sessions Judge for Montgomery County, Tennessee, which was based on statements of an unknown person outside the defendant’s residence and computer keystroke software results[,] provided a sufficient nexus to make a probable cause determination.” After reviewing the record 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.

In this case, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to the constitutional protections afforded him to be protected from double jeopardy. Defendant asserts in this interlocutory appeal that the trial court erred by denying the motion. I concur in the results reached by the majority, but write separately to express my opinion that the only justifiable reason for the trial court to deny the motion was the Defendant’s failure to explicitly object to the declaration of a mistrial.