APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Montgomery County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant of the felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery of the victim, George Miller, Jr. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motions to suppress the results of a buccal swab and testimony regarding DNA test results. He also contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Dale Keith Larkin (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and one count of insurance fraud. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and to a concurrent term of eight years for the fraud conviction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to sequester the jury; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the Defendant’s expert witness to testify for the State; (3) the trial court erred in admitting autopsy photographs and some of the victim’s bones into evidence (4) the trial court improperly limited the Defendant’s right to cross-examine a State’s witness; (5) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument; (6) the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions; (7) the trial court failed to discharge its duty as thirteenth juror; and (8) the cumulative effect of these errors violated the Defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Upon our thorough review of the record, we have determined that (1) the trial court failed to satisfy its mandatory duty to act as thirteenth juror; (2) the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the Defendant’s expert witness to testify for the State; (3) the State failed to adduce sufficient proof to support the Defendant’s conviction of first degree premeditated murder; and (4) the State failed to adduce sufficient proof to support the Defendant’s conviction of insurance fraud. Therefore, we must reverse the Defendant’s convictions and remand this matter for a new trial on the charge of second degree murder and any appropriate lesser included offenses. The charge of insurance fraud is dismissed.

This appeal involves a post-divorce order of protection. Several years after the parties’ divorce in another state, the appellant mother obtained an order of protection against the appellee father in a Tennessee general sessions court, to restrict his contact with her and the parties’ minor child. The parties’ out-of-state divorce decree was enrolled in the Tennessee chancery court, where the mother also sought a continued order of protection, contempt relief, and modification of the parties’ parenting arrangement. All matters, including the general sessions order of protection, were consolidated in the Tennessee chancery court. The chancery court held a hearing on the order of protection. It declined to extend the order of protection and dissolved it. All other matters before the chancery court remained pending. The mother filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We hold that the dissolution of the order of protection, with other matters still pending, is not a final and appealable judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and remand to the chancery court.

Douglass Leon Lyle (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years for each offense, to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) the State’s election of offenses was ineffective; (2) the trial court should have merged the two convictions; (3) the trial court erred in its ruling on a Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412 motion; (4) the jury charge was erroneous; and (5) his sentences are excessive. We hold that the State’s election of offenses was ineffective as to Count 2, and we reverse that conviction and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence as to Count 1.

Leslie Dwight Coffey (“Husband”) filed this action for divorce against his spouse, Paula Sue Coffey (“Wife”). During the course of the proceedings, Husband was held in contempt on no less than four separate occasions. The contempt findings were sometimes related to some aspect of his refusal to pay child support. He was also found guilty of contemptuous conduct related to other matters. Each time, his sentence was suspended. Eventually, the suspended time amounted to a total of 50 days in jail. After over ten years of litigation, Wife filed two separate petitions asking that Husband show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt. On the second petition, the court found Husband in criminal contempt, revoked the suspensions of the previously-imposed sentences and imposed a five day sentence for the new contempt. The court also awarded Wife $10,000 in attorney’s fees in a separate order entered the morning after Wife’s counsel filed an affidavit claiming over $20,000 in fees and expenses. Husband appeals. We affirm that part of the judgment holding Husband in criminal contempt and ordering him to serve a total of 55 days, which figure includes the previously-suspended sentences. We vacate that part of the judgment awarding Wife $10,000 in attorney’s fees and remand for a hearing to allow Husband an opportunity to challenge the fees and expenses claimed by Wife’s counsel.

The Defendant, Marcie Lynn Pursell, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of three counts of aggravated child abuse, Class A felonies. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (2006) (amended 2009, 2011, 2012). She was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three concurrent terms of fifteen years’ confinement. On appeal, she contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court erred by not allowing her to present evidence that she consented to a polygraph examination. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns whether Tennessee courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over an Indonesian cigarette manufacturer whose cigarettes were sold in Tennessee through the marketing efforts of a Florida entrepreneur who purchased the cigarettes from an independent foreign distributor. From 2000 to 2002, over eleven million of the Indonesian manufacturer’s cigarettes were sold in Tennessee. After the manufacturer withdrew its cigarettes from the United States market, the State of Tennessee filed suit against the manufacturer in the Chancery Court for Davidson County,alleging that the manufacturer had failed to pay into the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Escrow Fund as required by Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-31-101 to -103 (2001 & Supp. 2012). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Indonesian manufacturer. The Court of Appeals reversed, granted the State’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the applicable fines. State ex rel. Cooper v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co., No. M2010-01955-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 2571851 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2011). We find that, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tennessee courts lack personal jurisdiction over the Indonesian manufacturer. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2).

In November of 1998, a number of American tobacco manufacturers and a majority of the states and territories of the United States, including Tennessee, reached a settlement in litigation over tobacco-related healthcare costs. The terms of the settlement permit the tobacco manufacturers that were involved in the litigation to withhold a portion of their liability under the settlement terms based upon loss of market share in a participating state, unless the state enacts a “qualifying statute” requiring manufacturers not party to the litigation to either participate in the settlement or pay an amount into a designated escrow fund based upon annual cigarette sales. The underlying purpose of requiring non-participating manufacturers to either join in the settlement or pay into the escrow fund is to assure “a level playing field” for all manufacturers selling cigarettes in the participating states and territories. In consequence, Tennessee adopted a qualifying statute, the Tennessee Tobacco Manufacturers’ Escrow Fund Act of 1999 (“Escrow Fund Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-31-101 to -103 (2001 & Supp. 2012), which requires “[a]ny tobacco product manufacturer selling cigarettes to consumers within the state of Tennessee” after May 26, 1999, to either become a party to the existing settlement agreement or make specified payments into a “qualified escrow fund.” Id. § 47-31-103(a).
 

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Neil Vader, was convicted of driving in violation of a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO) order, driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), violation of the implied consent law, and driving on a revoked driver’s license. Defendant waived a jury trial to determine the number of his prior DUI convictions. The trial court found that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions and was guilty of DUI fourth offense. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve one year and nine months for counts one and two and eleven months and twenty nine days for count three. All of Defendant’s sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The trial court merged count four, driving on a revoked driver’s license, with violation of a MVHO order. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in excluding testimony offered as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a witness; (2) the prosecuting attorney engaged in misconduct during closing arguments; and (3) the cumulative effect of the trial court’s evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct constitutes reversible error. After thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Davidson County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, DeShawn Lamar Baker, charging him with solicitation of aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and felony possession of a handgun. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and felony possession of a handgun. Defendant was sentenced to ten years for the conspiracy charge, eighteen years for aggravated robbery, and four years for the handgun charge to be served concurrently for an effective eighteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction as a Range II offender. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) that the State commited prosecutorial misconduct by failing to timely disclose the discovery of his wallet containing the victim’s driver’s license and that John Peoples would be called as a witness at trial. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Charles W. Elsea, Jr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. However, because the Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28 section 10 for seeking discretionary review of the denial of his motion, this court has no jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Petitioner, Clarence Nesbit, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree murder and sentenced to death. He sought post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court vacated the death sentence and granted a new sentencing hearing, which the State has not appealed. The post-conviction court denied Petitioner relief from his first degree murder conviction. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying his claim that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of the trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Philander Butler, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of error coram nobis which challenged his 1989 and 1990 guilty pleas to sale of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, and attempted possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell. The trial court dismissed the petition on grounds: (1) that it was filed outside the applicable statute of limitation; and (2) that the petition failed to state a cognizable claim. On appeal, he contends that the dismissal was erroneous. The petitioner also contends that the court erred in summarily dismissing his “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59.04 and Motion to Set Aside Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60.02(2)-(3).” Following review of the record we discern no error and affirm the dismissal of the petition and motion.

Following a jury trial, Petitioner, Damien Clark, was convicted of second degree murder. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction in State v. Damien Clark, W2007-00651-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 890886 (Tenn. Crim. App. April 1, 2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2009). Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner appeals, asserting that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Lewis Green, appeals the trial court’s decision to deny his request for alternative sentencing and judicial diversion. The defendant pled guilty to seven counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and one count of possession of marijuana with intent sell. He received an effective five-year sentence for the convictions. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered that the sentences be served in incarceration and denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion. Following review of the record, we affirm the sentencing decisions of the trial court.

Defendant, Deangelo Thompson, appeals from his conviction in the Shelby County Criminal Court for reckless aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II multiple offender to five years incarceration. In this direct appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erred by sentencing him to five years in confinement for his conviction; and that certain comments and questions by the trial court constitute plain error. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of possessing more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to fourteen years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress cocaine that was seized by police after they searched his person. We conclude that the defendant waived this argument by failing to include it in his motion for new trial. The defendant also claims that the State violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by using two of its peremptory strikes to remove two African American potential jurors. We conclude that these potential jurors were removed for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Finally, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by allowing a felony drug conviction that was more than ten years old into evidence after the defendant denied that he sold drugs on the stand. We agree, but we conclude that the error was harmless. We affirm the judgments of the trial court accordingly.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the numerous deficiencies in counsel’s performance failed to prejudice the Petitioner cumulatively in his right to a fair proceeding and failed to call into question the reliability of the jury’s verdict. I agree with the majority’s conclusions regarding counsel’s deficiencies except its conclusion that counsel were not deficient in their pretrial investigation and trial preparation. The majority concludes that because the trial began one year and seven months after the Petitioner was indicted, counsel “would not have had time or resources to conduct the investigation performed by post-conviction counsel after the trial.” Although the majority is correct in noting the length of time it took for all the relevant witnesses to be found and presented at the post-conviction hearing, I simply cannot agree that counsel did not have adequate time to investigate and prepare for the trial.

This appeal involves a claim for interest on inheritance and estate tax refunds. In 2002, the decedent’s estate filed a Tennessee inheritance tax return and paid an estimated amount of taxes due. Over the next several years, the estate was embroiled in litigation; the litigation expenses diminished the size of the estate. Once the litigation concluded, the estate became entitled to more deductions on its inheritance tax return. To obtain the benefit of the deductions, the estate filed two amended Tennessee inheritance tax returns, one in 2009 and one in 2010, claiming that it was entitled to substantial tax refunds based on its overpayment of inheritance and estate taxes in 2002. The defendant Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue paid the refunds claimed in the estate’s amended returns, plus a pittance of interest on the refunds. The estate filed this lawsuit against the commissioner, claiming that it was entitled to additional interest on the inheritance and estate tax refunds under the applicable law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; each agreed that the facts are undisputed and each claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the commissioner. The estate now appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

This appeal involves an employee’s claim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The plaintiff employee filed a lawsuit against his employer, the defendant university, asserting several claims of employment discrimination under state and federal statutes. Subsequently, in a second lawsuit against the university, the plaintiff employee asserted that he suffered adverse job actions after he filed his charge of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the first discrimination lawsuit. The alleged adverse job actions included making the employee perform tasks that resulted in physical injuries. The lawsuits were consolidated and, after an eight-day jury trial, the jury awarded the employee $3 million in compensatory damages on the retaliation claim only. The defendant university appeals. We hold that, to prove a claim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, the plaintiff was required to present material evidence to the jury that the decisionmaker, his supervisor at the university, was aware of the plaintiff’s protected activity when she took the adverse job actions against the plaintiff. The plaintiff employee presented no material evidence at trial of such knowledge by his supervisor at the relevant time. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiff employee’s complaint.
 

This appeal concerns Mother’s reservation of a life estate in property she conveyed to Son pursuant to a warranty deed. After the initial conveyance in 1983, Son resided on the property for years before renting the property to others. Mother prohibited the use of the property by certain tenants, who complied with her demand to vacate. In 2008, Mother objected to the current tenant’s occupation and filed suit to enforce her right to possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the claim was barred by a ten-year statute of limitations. Mother appeals. We reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The appellant, Deon Marquett Boykins, pled guilty to two counts of introducing contraband into a penal institution and one count of possessing a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to deliver. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to an effective five years on probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Curtis Stanton, of the first degree premeditated murder of the victim, Regina Tidwell. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Lincoln County jury convicted petitioner, Shawn Simmons, of first degree murder. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, and petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Stephen Bartholomew Gillard, of possession of a controlled substance, third offense. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the prior conviction evidence introduced at trial to support the third offense classification for possession of a controlled substance. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.