APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Craig L. Beene, appeals Dickson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the failure of Petitioner to file a complete copy of the petition for habeas corpus relief or the judgments from which he is appealing violate the requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Appellant, Charles L. Williams, was indicted in October of 2003 for one count of rape of a child and two counts of rape. In November of 2005, the case proceeded to trial. Appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-two years in incarceration. Appellant appealed the convictions and sentence. See State v. Charles L. Williams, No. M2005-00836-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 3431920 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 29, 2006) ("Williams I"). On appeal, this Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. Id. at *1. On remand, Appellant was again found guilty of rape of a child and two counts of rape. This time, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of seventeen years, merging the two convictions for rape with the conviction for rape of a child. Appellant appeals his convictions after retrial, arguing: (1) that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment with prejudice because the State committed violations of Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to provide audible videotapes of interviews with Appellant and the victim until three days into the second trial; (2) that the trial court failed to follow the mandate of this Court with respect to expert testimony; (3) that the trial court permitted improper testimony of experts; and (4) that the remedy for the trial court’s errors is a dismissal of the indictment. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the State did not commit a Brady violation where the information in the videotapes was not material; Agent Johnson’s testimony was not in contravention of this Court’s opinion on direct appeal; and the expert testimony elicited at trial was based on information actually perceived by the expert in his examination of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Appellant, Telly Romeras Robertson, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in October of 2008 for one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, and one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. In January of 2009, Appellant was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of ecstacy with the intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to prepare a controlled substance, one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and casual exchange of marijuana. Appellant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to sell ecstacy and possession with intent to deliver between .5 ounce and ten pounds of marijuana in exchange for sentences of ten years and two years, respectively. The sentences were to run consecutively to each other and to an eight-year sentence Appellant was already serving for conspiracy to commit money laundering, for a total effective sentence of twenty years. At a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied an alternative sentence. Appellant appeals. After a review of the record and authorities, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an alternative sentence where: (1) Appellant was sentenced to a Class B felony, rendering him ineligible for probation; (2) probation was denied in order to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense; and (3) Appellant was incarcerated at the time of sentencing, rendering him ineligible for a sentence of Community Corrections. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This is an appeal by Elvira N. M. from an order terminating her parental rights to her two minor children, Estefani Y. M. and Vanessa N. M. The order terminating the appellant’s parental rights was entered on October 15, 2012. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until November 15, 2012, more than (30) days from the date of entry of the October 15, 2012 order. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This is an appeal from an order transferring the action below from the Circuit Court for Roane County to the Chancery Court for Roane County. Because the order appealed from does not resolve any issues raised in the proceedings but merely transfers those claims to another court, we dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment.

In this worker’s compensation case, the employee alleged that his job caused a compensable aggravation of arthritis in his knees. The trial court found that his employment had caused only an increase of symptoms, and, therefore, he did not sustain a compensable injury. The employee has appealed. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Oscar Torres, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving an effective twenty-year sentence in the Department of Correction following his conviction for two counts of rape of a child, Class A felonies. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition for relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to object during jury-out hearings to recalling the victim as a rebuttal witness; and (2) failing to call an expert witness pertaining to the faultiness of the memory of a child witness. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of the petition.

Petitioner, Doris Nell Jones, was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to eighteen years in incarceration. On direct appeal, this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on an untimely notice of appeal and the absence of a motion for new trial in the record. State v. Doris Nell Jones, No. M2007-00791-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 544576, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 27, 2008), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. June 1, 2009). The supreme court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in State v. Byington, 284 S.W.3d 220 (Tenn. 2009). On remand, this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Doris Nell Jones, No. M2009-01102-CCA-RM-CD, 2009 WL 2633026, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 26, 2009) (not for citation), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Feb. 22, 2010). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court improperly denied relief. After a review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief because Petitioner has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she is entitled to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Appellant, Charles Edward Wilbourn, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine for sale in a drug-free zone. On February 19, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in a negotiated plea to the charge and an eight-year sentence to be served at 100 percent. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. After appointment of counsel, an amended petition was filed. One of the issues raised was that trial counsel afforded Petitioner ineffective assistance of counsel because she did not adequately investigate whether the incident actually occurred in a drug-free non-school zone. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred with respect to the above issue. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction court did not err in denying the petition. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Donald Ragland, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends (1) that the post-conviction court erred by not forcing the Petitioner to testify at the post-conviction hearing; and (2) that the Petitioner received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because trial counsel withdrew a motion to suppress a photographic identification of the Petitioner. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The employee alleged that he sustained an on-the-job injury in June 2004. The settlement of that claim was approved in December 2004. The employee alleges in this case that he suffered additional compensable injuries in June 2005 and July 2006. The employer contends that the new allegations pertain not to new injuries but rather a continuation of symptoms from the 2004 injury. The employee also filed a third-party tort action arising from the 2004 injury. The employer intervened in the tort case to protect its medical subrogation lien. The parties settled all claims at a joint mediation that resulted in the tort defendant paying a sum of money, the employee dismissing with prejudice this workers’ compensation case, and the employer reducing its medical subrogation lien. Accordingly, the workers’ compensation case was dismissed with prejudice. More than a year later, the employee moved to vacate the dismissal, contending that he had not authorized it, and the employer moved to strike that motion. While these motions were pending, the employee sought to depose the mediator, the third party’s attorney, and the employer’s attorney. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the employee had agreed to the dismissal, and it granted the employer’s motion to strike. The trial court also quashed the deposition subpoenas issued at the employee’s request. The employee has appealed from these orders, and the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee alleged that he injured his back as a result of a fall from his tractor trailer during the course and scope of his employment. The employer contended that the employee’s workers’ compensation claim was barred by the affirmative defense of misrepresentation of his physical condition, that a compensable injury had not been sustained and that his permanent partial disability award was excessive. The trial court found that the employee did not intentionally misrepresent his physical condition, that the employee had sustained a compensable injury and that the award should be 70% permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against each of the trial court’s findings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee alleged that she injured her neck in a forklift accident. Her employer did not deny that the event occurred but contended that her symptoms were caused by preexisting degenerative changes. The employee eventually had surgery and sought workers’ compensation benefits. In addition to causation, the employer asserted that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury and made a finding concerning the extent of her permanent disability. However, it held the record open to permit the taking of additional proof concerning the statute of limitations. After considering that evidence, the court found that the claim was timely and awarded benefits pursuant to its original ruling. The employer has appealed, challenging the trial court’s rulings on the statute of limitations and causation. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Michael Ray McKee, contends that his right to a speedy trial regarding his probation revocation hearing was violated and, as a result, the trial court erred in revoking his probation. After reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated and that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court’s revocation; we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother’s parental rights to two children were terminated on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial non-compliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. The court also concluded that termination of Mother’s rights was in the best interests of the children. Mother appeals, contending that the evidence does not support the statutory grounds or that termination is in the children’s best interest and asserting that the Departmentof Children’s Services did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. We affirm the judgment terminating her rights.

A teacher at Overton High School, who was also a sports coach, challenged the nonrenewal of his coaching contract, claiming the nonrenewal was not in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-510. The trial court found the contract was not renewed because the teacher refused to follow the guidelines for handling money collected at the sporting events and that the former coach had not met his burden of proof under the statute. We conclude the evidence supports the trial court’s ruling and affirm the judgment.
 

Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate Father’s rights to his fourteen year old son to allow Stepfather to adopt the child. Mother and Stepfather asserted Father abandoned the child because his visits constitute nothing more than “token visitation.” Father lives in Massachusetts and usually visits the child once a year. Father’s most recent visit was one month before Mother and Stepfather filed their petition. The trial court denied the petition and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Father presented evidence that he has tried to communicate and visit more with the child but that Mother has thwarted his efforts. Based on the particular facts of this case we conclude Father has not abandoned the child by failing to visit, or engaging in “token visitation” as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102, in the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination.
 

Defendant, Christopher Bomar Wenzler, was indicted by the Fayette County Grand Jury for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) in Count 1, and for DUI, third offense, in Count 2. Defendant pled guilty to DUI as charged in Count 1, and waived a jury trial and submitted to a bench trial as to the issues in Count 2. Count 2 alleged two prior DUI convictions: (i) in the Justice Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi on June 7, 2006, and (ii) in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County on February 9, 2006. Defendant argued in the trial court that the Mississippi conviction could not be lawfully used to enhance his current offense to DUI, third offense, but the trial court found Defendant guilty as charged. The trial court merged the conviction in Count 1 with the conviction in Count 2, and sentenced Defendant to serve 11 months and 29 days, with all but 120 days suspended as a third offense DUI offender. Defendant appeals, arguing that he should have been sentenced for DUI, second offense, because the judgment form used to prove Defendant’s prior conviction in DeSoto County, Mississippi is silent as to whether he was represented by counsel or waived his right to counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this case, we address the bond requirements for an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court. The plaintiff property owners were leasing commercial space to the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a forcible entry and detainer action against the defendant in General Sessions Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiffs allegedly locked the defendant out of the property prematurely, causing property damage to the defendant. The defendant then filed a cross-claim in the original General Sessions Court lawsuit for unlawful ouster. The defendant also filed a separate action in the General Sessions Court based on the same allegations of unlawful ouster. The General Sessions Court consolidated the two cases for trial. Ultimately, the General Sessions Court held in favor of the plaintiffs on their forcible entry and detainer claim and awarded attorney fees under the lease. As to the defendant’s cross-claim and separate lawsuit based on unlawful ouster, the General Sessions Court found in favor of the defendant and awarded damages. The plaintiffs sought a de novo appeal to Circuit Court of the rulings in favor of the defendant on his cross-claim and separate claim; the defendant appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. In doing so, all of the appellants — the plaintiffs and the defendant — filed notices of appeal and paid $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk, pursuant to T.C.A. § 8-21-401(b)(1)(C)(i). None of the appellants filed any further bond at that time. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeals, arguing that the Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because they had not complied with the appeal-bond requirement in T.C.A. § 27-5-103. The Circuit Court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeals. The Circuit Court also dismissed the defendant’s appeal sua sponte based on the same reasoning. The plaintiffs now appeal to this Court. We reverse the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ appeals in light of our recent decision Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, LLC, No. W2012-00803-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013), and remand for further proceedings.

In this case, the majority concludes that the plaintiffs’ payment of $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-103, and therefore, that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing their appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, the majority relies upon the recent case of Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, LLC, No. W2012-00803-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013). Because I believe Bernatsky is based upon a flawed premise, I respectfully dissent.

The defendant, Cody Garris, appeals from his Giles County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded conviction of child abuse, claiming that the trial court erred by imposing a fully-incarcerative sentence. Because the record supports the sentence imposed by the trial court, we affirm.

The appellant, Fredrick John Deen Clark, pled guilty in the Grundy County Circuit Court to vehicular assault, a Class D felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant received a six-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part. The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the error. We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals. Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded.

Defendant was convicted of possession of hydrocodone with intent to sell, a felony, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class D felony, and possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. He received a total effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and numerous evidentiary rulings. The defendant also claims that the trial court erred by failing to find mitigating factors and by sentencing him for a Class C felony with respect to his conviction for possession of hydrocodone with intent to sell or distribute, when the crime at issue was in fact a Class D felony. After review, we conclude that the trial court committed no reversible error with respect to the defendant’s convictions. However, the trial court erroneously sentenced the defendant with respect to at least one of his offenses. Consequently, we remand the case to the trial court for re-sentencing.

A beneficiary of the decedent’s estate contends the Executor should be held personally liable for paying two debts of the decedent for which no claim was filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-307. The Executor insists that Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2318(b) afforded him the discretion to pay debts of the decedent because the estate was solvent and the time in which the claims could have been filed had not expired. The probate court ruled in favor of the Executor, finding the payment of the debts was authorized pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-318(b). We affirm.