APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A jury convicted the defendant, Frank Graham, of the first degree premeditated murder of his ex-fiancee, Taffi Crawford. The defendant received a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence establishing premeditation. He also asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the statement he gave police, in which he acknowledged having accidentally shot the victim. The defendant asserts that he was arrested without probable cause and that his waiver of rights was not valid because police did not inform him about the presence of an attorney who had been contacted by his family to represent him. The defendant also appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony regarding prior bad acts. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves post-divorce modification of a parenting plan. The father filed a petition alleging a material change in circumstances and seeking to be designated primary residential parent for the parties’ minor son. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found a material change in circumstances but declined to designate the father as primary residential parent. Instead, the trial court left the mother in place as primary residential parent and increased the father’s parenting time. The father now appeals the trial court’s decision not to designate him as the primary residential parent. We reverse, holding that the evidence in the record preponderates against the trial court’s holding that it is in the child’s best interest for the mother to remain the primary residential parent, so the trial court erred in denying the father’s petition to designate him as the primary residential parent.
 

This is an appeal from an order entered on March 12, 2013. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App.
P. 4, we dismiss the appeal.
 

Homeowners claim that cracks in the exterior bricks of their home were caused by blasting in the neighborhood. Their insurance company denied coverage under the homeowner policy. The juryreturned a verdict in favor of the homeowners. Based upon our construction of the insurance contract and its exclusion for damage caused by earth movement, we conclude that the judgment approving the verdict is erroneous and must be reversed.
 

The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for damages under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-21-108. We affirm

Former sales associate brought wrongful termination suit against his former employer, alleging that his termination was in breach of contract and violated the Tennessee Disability Act. When the employer failed to answer the complaint, the trial court granted the employee a default judgment on liability; the court subsequently entered an order granting the employee judgment for $184,437.50. The Employer filed various motions seeking to have the judgments set aside; the court declined to set aside the default judgment but set aside the monetary award. Following a hearing, the court awarded the employee back pay in the sum of $55,590.74 and counsel fees totaling $60,107.25. Employer and employee appeal. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The defendant, Marquon Lanorris Green, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; aggravated rape, a Class A felony; and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to twenty years on the aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape convictions and ten years on the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to each other and a prior ten-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Clark Beauregard Waterford, III, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to forty years as a Range II, multiple offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for second degree murder; (2) that the trial court erred in deciding that the Defendant’s two prior convictions for aggravated assault would have been admissible for impeachment purposes if the Defendant had decided to testify at trial; and (3) that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

In this appeal as of right, the State challenges the Knox County Criminal Court’s setting aside the jury verdicts of guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony and ordering dismissal of the charges. Because the trial court erred by setting aside the verdicts and dismissing the charges of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary, the jury verdicts are reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing. Although the trial court erred by dismissing the firearms charge on the grounds named in its order, error in the indictment for that offense nevertheless requires a dismissal of those charges. Finally, the defendants’ convictions of aggravated robbery and the sentences that accompany them are affirmed.

Stephanie Lawson Miller (“Mother”) appeals the Trial Court’s April 26, 2012 order finding and holding her in criminal contempt for violating the parties’ Permanent Parenting Plan. Mother raises issues on appeal regarding whether Stephen Lee Miller (“Father”) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mother had violated the Permanent Parenting Plan, whether Mother could be jailed for said contempt, whether the parties’ minor child has a constitutional right to exercise his religious beliefs, and whether the Trial Court erred in failing to consider the testimony of the child. We find and hold that Father did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mother violated the Permanent Parenting Plan, that Mother could be jailed for said contempt, that the Trial Court did not err in refusing to consider the child’s testimony about his religious decision making, and that the issue of whether the child has a constitutional right is not properly before this Court. We affirm.

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., Presiding Judge, dissenting. With all due respect to my colleagues, I believe the conduct, or lack thereof, of Mother has been blown way out of proportion. Certainly, not all of the i’s were properly dotted and not all of the t’s were correctly crossed, but, in the final analysis and way before the date scheduled for the Child’s Baptism, Father had ample opportunity to weigh in on the decision. He failed to stop the Baptism when he could.

In this post-divorce case, the issues are twofold: whether the trial court erred in awarding Mary Nelle Sprague (“Mother”) a judgment against her former spouse, Andrew Douglas Sprague (“Father”), in the amount of $5,604.65 for uncovered medical expenses pursuant to the terms of the parties’ parenting plan; and whether the trial court erred in the process of holding Father in criminal contempt of court. We modify the medical expense award by decreasing it to $2,124.32, the amount claimed by Mother and the amount established by the proof. Further, we reverse the criminal contempt finding because Father was not provided adequate notice of the criminal contempt charges as required by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b).

Property owners, Bryant Coley, Sr., his son, Bryant Coley, Jr., and their wives, filed a declaratory judgment action against fiduciaries, Mike Di Sorbo and Michelle Di Sorbo, after the Di Sorbos refused the Coleys access to a road that crossed their ward’s property. The Coleys requested that the court declare the road a public road and enjoin the interference of its use. Following a bench trial, the court found that the “route” in question was not a dedicated public road. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint. The Coleys appeal. We affirm.

Mother and Father were divorced in 2010, and Father filed a petition for modification of the parenting plan seven months later in an effort to reduce Mother’s parenting time. The trial courtdetermined Fatherdid notshow a materialchange of circumstances and denied Father’s petition. Father appealed,alleging the trial court erred in four different ways: (1) concluding Father had not proved a material change of circumstances; (2) precluding Father from introducing evidence of Mother’s mental health prior to the divorce; (3) allowing the parenting plan to stay intact such that Mother is able to return to court to prove her mental stability and seek an increase in her parenting time; and (4) not awarding Father his attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.
 

The petitioner, Bobby Jackson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of the first degree felony murder of his girlfriend’s five-month-old daughter. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of four potential witnesses concerning the defendant’s son’s propensity toward violence violated his constitutional right to present a defense. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant has failed to establish that the testimony of these four witnesses was critical to the defense. In addition, strong societal interests support the exclusion of this type of character evidence when nothing in the record might suggest that the defendant’s son actually committed the crime. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of these witnesses did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Carlos Kennedy, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving an effective sentence of thirty-five years in the Department of Correction following his convictions for rape of a child, attempted rape of a child, assault, and coercion of a witness. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Secifically, he contends that trial counsels were ineffective by: (1) failing to consider moving for a change of venue; (2) failing to interview all fact witnesses; (3) failing to file important pre-trial motions; and (4) failing to utilize an expert witness. Following review of the record, we discern no error and affirm the denial of the petition.

Appellant, Sean M. Leifer, was indicted for first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. A jury convicted him of reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of four years and sixteen years, respectively. Appellant now challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s rulings with regard to the State’s expert witness. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Husband appeals the trial court’s determination that the parties’ residence was marital property; he also appeals the division of the marital property. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

The plaintiff appeals arguing that the trial court erred in setting aside a default judgment and dismissing all claims under the doctrine of res judicata. Based upon the record on appeal, we find no error and affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

This case arose from two contracts between the same parties for the sale of commercial property. A provision in the second contract that was not included in the first provided that the buyer would retain $75,000 of the contract price if an access road to the property was not completed by a certain date. Completion was defined as occurring “upon the dedication and turning the streets over to the town of Woodbury and/or Cannon County, Tennessee.” The buyer subsequently filed a petition for declaratory judgment, asking the court to find that completion had not occurred and that he was therefore entitled to keep the $75,000. The trial court ruled against the buyer, holding that he was obligated to pay the full contract price to the sellers. We affirm the result reached by the trial court because we find that the $75,000 clause was not a valid liquidated clause provision, but rather a penalty.
 

A man who was injured in a head-on collision filed suit against the woman driving the car that hit him and the company that owned the car. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by affidavits indicating that the woman unexpectedly blacked out just prior to the collision, probably as a result of her diabetic condition. After examining the affidavits of medical experts for both the plaintiff and the defendants, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the driver’s loss of consciousness was unforeseeable. The plaintiff appeals the summary judgment. We affirm the trial court.
 

Jeffrey Booth (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. Pursuant to a sentencing agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, this Court merged the two especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. The Petitioner subsequently filed for postconviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court should have applied State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), retroactively. He also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This case involves the application of the statute of limitations to an intervening personal injury complaint filed by a bankruptcy trustee after the defendants asserted that the original plaintiff, the debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding, lacked standing to bring the claim. Once the bankruptcy trustee became aware of the claim, he filed a motion for intervention, or in the alternative, for substitution pursuant to Rule 17.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court granted the trustee’s motion and the trustee later filed an intervening complaint. The trial court, however, later dismissed the case, reasoning that because the first complaint was filed by a party without standing, the original complaint was a nullity. Under this theory, the trial court concluded that the action was commenced upon the filing of the trustee’s intervening complaint, which was undisputedly outside the applicable statute of limitations. Having determined that the plaintiff’s original complaint was not a nullity, we conclude that the trustee’s intervening complaint relates back to the original complaint and, thus, was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Appellant, Tyrone Bohanna, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury in a multi-count indictment with co-defendant Brandon Harris in March of 2010. Appellant was indicted for especially aggravated robbery, attempted second degree murder, two counts of employing a firearm during a felony, aggravated burglary, and three counts of aggravated assault. Following a lengthy jury trial, Appellant was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, reckless endangerment as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. Appellant was acquitted of one of the firearms charges. At a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant was a career offender. As a result, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence for each offense and ordered consecutive sentencing after finding that Appellant had an extensive criminal history and was a dangerous offender. Appellant received a total effective sentence of 120 years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial which the trial court denied. On appeal, Appellant seeks resolution of the following issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of evidence pursuant to the forfeiture by wrongdoing provision of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6); (3) the admission of recordings of telephone calls made by Appellant from jail; (4) the determination by the trial court to hold court on Sunday; (5) the denial of Appellant’s motions for mistrial; (6) the admission of the testimony of Donovan Hensley; and (7) the imposition of consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence including Appellant’s telephone calls, hearsay statements of Antonio Hawkins, and testimony from Donovan Hensley; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.