APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The trial court granted the parties a divorce, named the father as the primary residential parent of their one and a half year old child, and permitted him to return with the child to North Carolina, where both parties originally came from and where their families still resided. The mother was granted three days of supervised visitation with the child each month in North Carolina. She argues on appeal that the trial court’s decision was flawed because the court failed to analyze the best interest of the child in accordance with the appropriate statutory factors. She also argues that by allowing Father to take the child to North Carolina and limiting her visitation so severely, the court deprived her of her right to maintain the parent-child relationship, and that its actions were inconsistent with case law stating that “the least restrictive visitation limits are favored in order to encourage the parent-child relationship.” We affirm the trialcourt’s designation of the father as the primary residential parent, and its finding that it was in the child’s best interest that the father be permitted to relocate with the child. We also affirm the parenting plan.

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their action for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation arising out of the purchase of a recreational vehicle from Defendant, a business located and incorporated in the State of Florida. The trial court dismissed the action on the finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the corporation had not purposely availed itself of doing business in Tennessee and did not have sufficient contacts with Tennessee. The trial court further found that the choice of venue clause in the purchase contract between the parties was enforceable and, thus, the proper venue for the action was Florida. Plaintiffs appealed arguing that the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. We affirm the finding that the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant as Plaintiffs did not establish the prima facie case of jurisdiction.

The Petitioner, Charlie M. Gardner, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for coram nobis relief. In 1999, the Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of reckless aggravated assault for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole plus eight years. Eleven years later, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging due process requires tolling the statute of limitations based upon an undisclosed "third party confession" and an "inconclusive T.B.I. report on ballistic evidence." Upon review, we affirm dismissal of the petition.

The appellant, Alexander Fuller, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s revoking his probation for theft of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars and ordering that he serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A crane struck a large metal container, pushing a door on the container into an employee and causing an injury to the employee’s back. The employee filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court entered a judgment finding that the employee’s inability to work and depression were caused by a preexisting condition that was unrelated to his work-related injury and that the employee sustained a 21% permanent partial disability for the injuries to his lumbar spine. The employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that his pre-existing condition was not aggravated by his work injury. The employer contends that the trial court erred by finding that the employee is permanently disabled as a result of his injury.

Defendant-Appellant, Victor Trezevant, appeals as of right his conviction for first degree murder committed during the perpetration of an attempted aggravated robbery, for which he received a life sentence. In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction of felony murder. Specifically, Trezevant contends that the State failed to corroborate the testimony of his accomplices. After reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against numerous healthcare providers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and -122. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the action with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Lamar Kashief Allen, entered guilty pleas to possession of cocaine with intent to sell an amount less than one-half gram and tampering with evidence, Class C felonies, and received an effective six-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the court. After a sentencing hearing, the court ordered confinement in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying Allen’s request for alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is the second appeal as of right by Defendant, Robert Edward Boling, from his conviction in the Sullivan County Criminal Court for aggravated robbery. In his first appeal as of right, this Court addressed only the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, affirmed the conviction on that issue, and refused to address all other issues because they were waived by Defendant’s attorney’s failure to timely file a motion for new trial. See State v. Robert Edward Boling, No. E2008-00351-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 482763 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2009) no perm. app. filed. Subsequently, Defendant timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court granted Defendant a delayed appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-113(a)(1)(“When the trial judge conducting a hearing pursuant to [the Post-conviction Procedure Act] finds that the petitioner was denied the right to an appeal from the original conviction in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Tennessee . . . the judge can . . . grant a delayed appeal;”). In accordance with our supreme court’s opinion in Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 (Tenn. 2003), the untimely motion for new trial being a nullity, Defendant was granted the ability to file a timely motion for new trial. He did, and it was overruled. Defendant now appeals his conviction for the second time and appropriately raises two issues for our review in this appeal: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for new counsel; and (2) the trial court erred by denying his objection to certain photographs and testimony, which Defendant asserts were “fruit of the poisonous tree” of his coerced confession. Defendant’s third issue, the post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial, is premature. After a review of Defendant’s two properly presented issues, we again affirm the judgment of conviction.

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to four children were terminated based on findings that they committed severe child abuse upon a sibling and that the best interests of the remaining four children (the parents’ rights to the two severely abused children having been previously surrendered) required termination of their rights. Parents appealed, challenging only the best interest finding. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Edgar Bailey, Jr., appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Petitioner claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief because of alleged defects in the felony murder count of his indictment and because the trial court dismissed the felony murder count after remand by this court on direct appeal. We conclude that there is no error in the judgment of the habeas corpus court and affirm.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on January 2, 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.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against numerous healthcare providers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and -122. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the action with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Appellant, John Robert Q. Jackson, challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court after he was revoked from community corrections. He argues that the trial court erred by considering his pending criminal allegations when ordering that he serve some of his sentences consecutively with each other. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his record of criminal activity was extensive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiff Bank accelerated a loan secured by an aircraft after Borrower failed to maintain insurance on the aircraft as required by the loan documents. Bank filed an action to collect amounts due; took possession of and disposed of the aircraft; and sought a judgment for the deficiency. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Bank. Defendant Loan Guarantors appeal. We affirm in part; reverse in part, finding that Bank did not provide sufficient notice as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-9-611; and remand for further proceedings.

A Montgomery County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Khaleefa Lambert, of first degree premeditated murder; first degree felony murder; especially aggravated kidnapping by the use of a weapon; and especially aggravated kidnapping by the infliction of serious bodily injury. The trial court merged the murder convictions and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction with the possibility of parole. The trial court also merged the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions and sentenced the appellant to eighteen years to be served consecutively to the murder conviction. On appeal, the appellant argues (1) that counts one, two, and three of the indictment should have been dismissed for failure to state an offense; (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to order the State to reveal grand jury testimony; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his murder convictions; and (4) that the trial court erred in sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the convictions and sentences. However, we vacate the judgments and remand the case to the trial court for entry of a single judgment reflecting the merger of the murder convictions and a single judgment reflecting the merger of the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions.

A Montgomery County jury convicted appellant, Frank Huber Sumner, of robbery. The trial court sentenced him to nine and one-half years of confinement as a multiple offender. Appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the length of his sentence is excessive and that he should have received an alternative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Jeremy Bailey, pled nolo contendere in the Hickman County Circuit Court to two counts of statutory rape, a Class E felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant agreed to be sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender and received consecutive four-year sentences with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve the sentences as eleven months, twenty-nine days in jail "day for day" prior to his being released on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his requests for judicial diversion and full probation and by ordering that he serve his sentence of confinement day for day. The State concedes that the trial court erred by imposing day-for-day confinement. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and full probation but remand for correction of the judgments to reflect that the appellant is entitled to earn good conduct credits while serving eleven months and twenty-nine days of his felony sentences in jail.

Brys Andrew Hensley (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of reckless aggravated assault and was placed on judicial diversion with a probationary period of two years. The State subsequently alleged that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s judicial diversion, entered a judgment of conviction, and sentenced the Defendant. After a second hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s motion to reconsider its previous ruling, and this appeal followed. We hold that, in revoking the Defendant’s diversion and probation, the trial court failed to exercise its statutory discretion and thereby committed reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Kiara Tashawn King, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property with a value of $500 or more, a Class E felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to an effective five-year sentence, to be served on probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to follow the correct sentencing procedure, imposed an excessive sentence, and erred by denying judicial diversion. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an effective sentence of five years of probation and that its decision to deny judicial diversion did not wholly depart from the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act. We affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court accordingly.

A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Deeric McAfee, of second degree murder and reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder, the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s criminal history, the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce on cross-examination a letter written by the appellant, the trial court erred by giving an instruction regarding flight, and the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A woman who was severely injured in a collision with an automobile driven by an unlicensed minor filed suit against the minor. The minor’s parents’ insurance company denied coverage and refused to defend the suit on the basis of an exclusion in the insurance policy for damages caused by a party driving without permission of the owner or a person “in lawful possession” of the vehicle. No defense was offered, and the injured party obtained a $1 million default judgment against the minor driver. The injured party and the minor’s parents then jointly filed suit against the insurance company, alleging that the insurance company was liable for breach of contract, bad faith, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and violation of the Unfair Claims Practices Act based upon its denial of coverage. The trial court ruled that, as a matter of law, the minor was entitled to insurance coverage under her parents’ policy at the time of the accident. The remainder of the case was tried, and the plaintiffs were awarded compensatory and punitive damages on the bad faith claim. The jury also found the insurance company had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and the trial court trebled the compensatory damages and awarded attorney fees under the Act. The insurance company has raised a number of issues in this appeal, inter alia, the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the question of coverage; the finding of liability for bad faith, the liability and enhanced penalty under the TCPA, and the requirement that plaintiffs should make an election between the punitive damages and the enhanced damages. We affirm the breach of contract holding, including the conclusion that the policy terms provided coverage. We reverse and vacate the holding of liability for bad faith, including the award of punitive damages thereunder, since the statutory cause of action was not plead. We also reverse the award of treble damages under the TCPA, but affirm the finding of a violation of the Act. We affirm as modified the award of attorneys’ fees.
 

I agree with the majority’s analysis of the coverage issue in Section V and its conclusion that TFM breached the contract by denying coverage. As a result of this breach, the judgment against TFM in the amount of $67,000 was appropriate. I concur as well with the analysis of the bad faith claims in Section VI.

On appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The State contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment because it misapplied the law in reaching its determination that the delay caused the Defendant actual prejudice. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The petitioner, Anthony Barnes, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The plea agreement provided for an effective eight year sentence and, further, that the petitioner could apply for a suspended sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the sentence be served in incarceration. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that the State complied with an agreement to recommend probation to the trial court. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief.