This action involves a dispute regarding workers’ compensation benefits. In July 2009, the plaintiff employee fell from a ladder in the course of her employment. Her employer initially provided medical care but denied that the employee sustained a compensable injury or permanent impairment. The employee filed this action on October 9, 2013. Upon a trial on the merits, the trial court found that (1) the employee did sustain a compensable, work-related injury and (2) the employee was permanently and totally disabled. The employer has appealed that ruling.

The final order from which the pro se appellant seeks to appeal was entered on April 20, 2015. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until May 22, 2015, more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The appellees have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss.

The Defendant claims the evidence was not sufficient for the jury to convict him of possession of .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school. He also claims the trial court as the thirteenth juror erred in not granting his motion for new trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Russell Lee Maze, is appealing the order of the trial court denying his “Motion for Order Correcting Error in Judgment.” The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

The defendant, Marika Lyn Foster, appeals the trial court’s order requiring her to serve the balance of her sentence in confinement after the revocation of her probation. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not extending the length and modifying the conditions of her probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Corey Eugene Huddleston, pleaded guilty to escape, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years, suspended to supervised probation. This conviction was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence the Defendant was serving at the time of his escape from the Dickson County Jail. A violation of probation warrant was issued for the Defendant?s arrest based upon multiple violations of probation rules. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant?s probation sentence and ordered service of the balance of the sentence in confinement.

The appellant, Shon Q. Blanks, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s revocation of his probation and the court’s imposition of incarceration instead of granting another alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Ramone Hunter, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, claiming that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a health care liability1 action. The plaintiff?s late husband died following a bilateral tonsillectomy surgery. An autopsy determined that the cause of death was angioedema. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants exactly one year after her husband?s death. The complaint did not comply with the pre-suit notice requirements for health care liability suits. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice and re-filed suit. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that the re-filed suit was barred.

This case involves a dispute over the boundary line between two neighboring tracts of farmland. The owner of one farm brought this action alleging that the neighbor crossed the common boundary line between the tracts and harvested or destroyed crops during three consecutive years. At trial, the parties presented conflicting surveys, each purporting to establish the correct boundary line between the properties at issue. The trial court found the appellee’s survey to be more persuasive and established the line as proposed by the appellee.