APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Juan Alberto Blanco Garcia, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

The defendant, Calvin Taylor, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, David Lee Leggs, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of three counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty-five years for each conviction, with one of the sentences ordered to be served consecutively to the other two concurrent sentences. Because the defendant had prior convictions for aggravated robbery, the sentences were also ordered to be served at 100 percent, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(k)(2), for a total effective sentence of fifty years at 100 percent in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court

This is a breach of contract case. The defendant entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff to demolish a dilapidated building. After the building was demolished, the defendant disputed the amount charged by the plaintiff and so refused to pay the plaintiff for his work. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant alleging breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the parties had entered into an oral agreement under which the plaintiff would be paid hourly for the demolition services, and that the defendant owed the plaintiff for the time spent on the job at the rates claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant now appeals. The appellate record does not contain a transcript; it contains only a statement of the evidence submitted by the defendant and not acted on by the trial court. We decline to consider the appellant’s proposed statement of the evidence, on the basis that, on its face, it does not convey a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired in the trial court as required under Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Left only with the technical record, we must assume that the evidence presented at trial supported the trial court’s decision. On this basis, the trial court’s decision is affirmed.

This is a termination of parental rights case, in which the trial court terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights to three of their children on the grounds of severe abuse and persistence of conditions. We reverse the ground of severe abuse as to Father, affirm as to Mother, and affirm the ground of persistence of conditions as to both parents. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that termination is in the best interests of the children. On that basis, we affirm the termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights.

The mother of a sixteen month-old girl left the child in the care of the child’s grandparents. The grandparents subsequently filed a dependency and neglect petition, and the court found that the child was dependent and neglected and granted temporary custody to the grandparents. They continued to raise the little girl without any assistance from the mother. Almost eight years later, the mother petitioned the court to restore custody of the child to her. Proceedings in the Juvenile Court followed, with an appeal to the Circuit Court, which determined that the child was dependent and neglected because changing custody to the mother would expose her to a risk of substantial harm. It also found that it was in Hannah’s best interest that custody remain with the grandparents. The appropriate standard for the mother’s request for modification of the order giving temporary custody to non-parents is whether the non-parents demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a substantial risk of harm to the child if custody were granted to the parent. Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the trial court.

The father of two minor children appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court found three grounds for termination: abandonment for failure to pay child support; failure to comply with the permanency plan; and failure to remedy persistent conditions. The court also found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Finding no error, we affirm.

After the property at issue was sold at a foreclosure sale, Appellee Bank filed the instant action seeking a deficiency judgment against Appellants. The Bank subsequently moved for summary judgment on the basis of the statutory presumption that the foreclosure sale price was the fair market value of the property at the time of purchase. Tenn. Code Ann. §35-5118(b). Appellants objected, asserting that, because the foreclosure sale price was less than the appraised value of the property, the sale was commercially unreasonable. The trial court granted the Bank’s motion, finding that Appellants failed to meet their burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the foreclosure sale price was “materially less” than the fair market value of the property at the time of foreclosure. Tenn. Code Ann. §35-5118(c). Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a proceeding to establish the arrearage for child support owed by the father to the mother of their minor child. The genesis of this matter was in 1993, when Mother filed a petition to establish paternity and set support. The Department of Human Services, Child Support Services intervened on behalf of Mother, paternity was established and child support was set. Over the next two decades Father was habitually delinquent in paying child support and Mother obtained judgements from time to time for arrearages. The most recent petition to establish the arrearage was assigned to a Child Support Magistrate in Dickson County. Following a hearing in March 2012, the magistrate ruled that Father’s child support arrearage principal was $17,894.26, and that the interest on the principal, some of which had been accruing since the entry of a 1994 judgment, totaled $54,726.64. Judgment in favor of Mother was awarded by the magistrate in the gross amount of $72,620.90. Although Mother had independent counsel representing her before the magistrate, the Department appealed the magistrate’s order, purportedly on behalf of Mother but over Mother’s objection and despite the fact none of the proceeds were owed to the Department. The juvenile court reduced the total award to $26,937.36. Mother filed this appeal. We have determined that Mother was not aggrieved by the magistrate’s decision; thus, the Department could not appeal, on behalf of Mother, a wholly favorable decision. Because the case was never properly before the juvenile court, we vacate the judgment of the juvenile court and remand with instructions to reinstate the $72,620.90 judgment awarded by the magistrate.

Father’s parental rights to two children were terminated as a result of his confinement in a correctional facility for more than ten years; he appeals, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the holding that termination of his parental rights would serve the best interest of the children. We disagree and affirm the decision terminating his rights.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a state prisoner. The prisoner was found guilty of a disciplinary offense while in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. After exhausting his administrative remedies, the prisoner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. The trial court granted the petition. After reviewing the record, the trial court found that the prisoner was not entitled to relief and dismissed the petition. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a divorce appeal. Husband appeals the court’s award of alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, upward deviations in the calculation of child support to provide for education trust funds and private school expenses for the parties’ two children, and the award of discretionary costs; Wife appeals the court’s award of attorney’s fees. We affirm the award of alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, and attorneys’ fees and remand the case for additional findings with respect to the upward deviations for educational expenses and discretionary costs.

In this conservatorship case, Gloria and John Walker filed a petition in which they sought to be appointed as the conservator of Alfonso B. Patton. Patricia Richmond protested, alleging that she would be an appropriate conservator. Prior to a full hearing on the petition, the trial court appointed the Walkers as temporary conservators of the estate and Patricia Richmond as a temporary conservator of the person. Following approximately one year of protracted litigation, the court confirmed that Alfonso B. Patton was in need of a conservator of his estate and of his person. The court subsequently appointed a neutral, third-party as permanent conservator of the estate and of the person. Patricia Richmond appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Albert James Saavedra, was ultimately convicted of voluntary manslaughter and attempted second degree murder and, thereafter, received an effective fourteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction. This court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s (1) allegedly providing the prosecution with information about the location of the Petitioner’s vehicle and (2) failing to adequately address issues surrounding the video recording of the Petitioner’s statement to authorities. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Robert Fusco, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, which were merged, and one count of each of the following offenses: conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated kidnapping, attempted aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -12-103, -13-202, -13-304, -13-305, -13-402, -13-403, & -14-403. The trial court determined that the Defendant was a Range II, multiple offender for sentencing purposes and imposed an effective 65-year sentence. We first decided this appeal several months ago in February 2012. See State v. Robert Fusco, No. M2010-01724-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 368224 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 3, 2012). Our decision was vacated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and the case was remanded to this court for reconsideration in light of State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). We requested and received supplemental briefing from the parties addressing any White issues. When this case was previously before this court, the Defendant raised the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the lesser-included offense of attempted especially aggravated kidnapping; (2) whether the assistant district attorney general committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (3) whether the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated kidnapping; (4) whether his dual convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted aggravated robbery violate due process concerns because the restraint of the victim was not beyond that necessary to complete the robbery; (5) whether the trial court erred by not merging his two conspiracy convictions because the offenses were the object of the same agreement; (6) whether the trial court erred by using certain out-of-state convictions to enhance his sentencing range; and (7) whether his sentence was excessive. We reissue our previous opinion as follows with a new section dealing with the White issues. Upon further consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case with those in White, we again affirm the Defendant’s convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted aggravated robbery. The case is remanded to the Montgomery County Circuit Court for the entry of corrected judgments to reflect merger of the Defendant’s conspiracy convictions. In all other respects, we conclude that there is no reversible error in the judgments of the trial court and affirm.

Appellant, Ricky Trumaine Salters, Sr., entered guilty pleas without recommended sentences to drug offenses stemming from four separate indictments, for which the trial court imposed an effective thirteen-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by ordering partially consecutive sentences and by refusing alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Rhonda Brown-Montague aka Rhonda Brown, pleaded guilty to theft of property over $60,000.00, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Appellant challenges her sentence as excessive and argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pro Se Petitioner, Herman Shurn, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner was originally indicted for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. A jury convicted the Petitioner of criminally negligent homicide and aggravated robbery for which the Petitioner received an effective sentence of fourteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his indictment for aggravated robbery, as amended, is void. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Joseph Scott Turk, was indicted for simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; failure to obey a traffic control device, a Class C misdemeanor; failure to operate a motor vehicle within a single lane of traffic, a Class C misdemeanor; failure to use a turn signal, a Class C misdemeanor; driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor; violation of the implied consent law, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle, a Class C misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-418, -17-425, 55-8-109, -8-123, -8-143, 55-10-401, -10-406, -10-416. The Defendant filed a suppression motion alleging that the arresting officer lacked a reasonable suspicion to stop his car. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion. The Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the State. The Defendant pled guilty to DUI, first offense, and received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days with forty-eight hours to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on unsupervised probation. As part of the plea agreement, the remaining charges were dismissed and the Defendant reserved a certified question of law for appellate review pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence against him. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, William K. Paulson, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of postconviction relief from his convictions of reckless endangerment, felony evading arrest, driving without a license, and violating the state registration law. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in determining that he received effective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Antonio Bobo, entered a guilty plea to assault and received probation on the sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to enter a guilty plea that was not knowing and voluntary. He now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellee, Jose Luis Gonzalez, was indicted by the Blount County Grand Jury for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm with intent to go armed in the commission of a felony. Prior to trial, Appellee filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on an illegal traffic stop. The trial court determined that the evidence seized during a traffic stop should be suppressed, granting the motion filed by Appellee. The State sought an interlocutory appeal on the matter, asking this Court to reverse the grant of the motion to suppress. After a review of the record, we determine police had probable cause to stop Appellant’s vehicle for improper brake light operation, or at minimum a reasonable and articulable suspicion the lights violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-402. As a result, we conclude based on the facts herein that the officer effectuated a lawful traffic stop of Appellee. Consequently, the trial court’s grant of the motion to suppress is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Kacy Dewayne Cannon, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II offender to thirty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it admitted a TBI report detailing the DNA on substances found on the victim’s pantyhose; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the case after the victim died; (3) the trial court erred when it denied his request for a forensic scientist to testify about the procedure for handling evidence and the possibility of evidence contamination; (4) the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for the victim’s pantyhose; (5) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce testimony about the emergency room’s protocol; (6) a State witness, Nurse Ardyce Ridolpho, was not qualified to testify as an expert; (7) the trial court erred when it determined that the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments; (8) the trial court erred when it allowed a doctor to testify about the victim’s medical records; and (9) he is entitled to relief based upon cumulative error. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Michael L. Webster, for one count of first degree premeditated murder. A jury found Appellant guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years at 100% as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The State argues that the trial court erred in determining that Appellant was a Range I, standard offender and should have sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender based upon prior convictions out of Georgia. On appeal, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction because the jury rejected his claim of self-defense and Appellant was unable to raise reasonable doubt. We also determine that the trial court correctly determined that Appellant qualified as a Range I, standard offender because his Georgia conviction for burglary was equivalent to a Tennessee conviction for burglary and, therefore, Appellant did not have the requisite amount of the correct classification of prior felonies for him to qualify as a Range II, multiple offender. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The Petitioner, Kimberly Holliday, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for coram nobis relief. In 2000, the Petitioner entered a “best interest” guilty plea to theft of services and issuing a false financial statement and received an effective four-year-suspended sentence. Over ten years later, in 2011, she filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that failure to report earnings to a public housing authority does not constitute “theft of services” based on State v. Marshall, 319 S.W.3d 558 (Tenn. 2010). In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because (1) “a person cannot be guilty of something that is not a crime;” (2) “due process requires tolling of the statute of limitations;” (3) “this case is timely filed as a petition for postconviction relief;” and (4) “a best interest plea rather than a voluntary admission of guilt preserves the appellant’s right to bring a petition for writ of error coram nobis.” Upon review, we affirm dismissal of the petition.