State of Tennessee ex rel. Andrea Gutierrez v. Lane Baggett
. M2022-01658-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge Adrienne Gilliam Fry

In this post-divorce case, Father appeals the trial court’s grant of sole decision-making authority over the Children’s non-emergency health care and religious decisions to Mother. Mother requests attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. Because there is no evidence to support an award of sole decision-making authority over religious decisions, we reverse the trial court’s order awarding Mother same. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed, and Mother’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is denied.

In Re Estate of Willis Seeber
E2022-01476-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Alan Dale

This appeal arises from a dispute over the estate of Mrs. Willie Seeber. Mrs. Seeber left a purported Last Will and Testament executed in 2021,which the personal representative named therein has offered to the Probate Court for Loudon County for solemn form probate. However, various family members and friends of Mrs. Seeber seek to challenge this will and allege Mrs. Seeber lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced to execute the will. The contestants rely upon earlier testamentary documents to establish standing to bring a will contest. The proponent appeals an order of the probate court holding the contestants have standing to bring a will contest. We hold the probate court did not err in its various findings and affirm the judgment of the probate court. This case is remanded for further proceedings.

State of Tennessee v. Mario Deshon Murray
M2022-01525-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

The defendant, Mario Deshon Murray, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony involving violence, and the trial court imposed a sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing, in misapplying mitigating factors, and in imposing consecutive sentences. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Tyrell Webb
W2023-00195-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge A. Melissa Boyd

The defendant, Tyrell Webb, pleaded guilty to rape, and the trial court imposed a sentence
of eight years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the
defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for probation and in restricting
cross-examination of the victim. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable
law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the case for entry of
judgments reflecting the dismissal of counts two and three.

Janette C. Gates v. Hans M. Switzer
M2021-01552-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phillip R. Robinson

During the pendency of a divorce, Wife was convicted of one count of criminal contempt. Wife filed a notice of appeal subsequent to this conviction. Before Wife’s initial appeal was heard, the trial court entered its order granting the parties a divorce. Wife filed another notice of appeal challenging the outcome of the divorce. We consolidated the respective appeals, and now, upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in both the contempt and divorce proceedings.

Jim Hysen v. T.A. Smythe
M2022-00816-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph A. Woodruff

Because the notice of appeal was untimely, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Judie Snipes v. Skin Cancer & Cosmetic Dermatology Center P.C. Et Al.
E2023-00386-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge John B. Bennett

This is an appeal from a final order entered on February 10, 2023. The Notice of Appeal
was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until March 14, 2023, more than thirty days
from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because
the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

State of Tennessee v. William Michael Bowers
M2022-00949-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Kyle A. Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, William Michael Bowers, of vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, and driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant appeals, contending that (1) the trial court violated his right to confrontation by allowing a witness to testify via video rather than in person; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. William Michael Bowers
M2022-00949-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority in holding
the Appellant properly preserved the issue of whether the trial court violated his right to
confrontation by allowing a witness to testify via Zoom rather than in person. I believe the
Appellant has waived the confrontation clause issue for failure to specify at trial whether
he was objecting based on the federal constitution,1 the state constitution,2 or both. Given
the lack of a properly developed record, I would have concluded that the issue was not
entitled to plenary review and declined review for plain error. Accordingly, I dissent.

Gresham, Smith and Partners v. Middleburg Real Estate Partners, LLC
M2021-01459-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal

In this breach of contract dispute between an engineering consulting firm and a real estate development company, we review the trial court’s holding that the real estate development company breached the contract between the parties as well as the court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the engineering consulting firm. We affirm the court’s decision in all respects. Because the parties’ agreement states that the prevailing party in litigation arising from or related to the contract shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, we remand the case to the trial court with instructions for the trial court to award the engineering firm its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this appeal.

State of Tennessee v. Cedric Konard Mitchell
M2022-00948-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Kyle A. Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Parkes

The Defendant, Cedric Konard Mitchell, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his ten-year
sentence for two counts of domestic assault and one count of aggravated assault in case
numbers 14908 and 15052. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by fully revoking
his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his ten-year sentence in
confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Tracey Lynn Carter
M2022-00769-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Forest A. Durard, Jr.

The Appellant, Tracey Lynn Carter, was convicted by a Lincoln County jury of attempted aggravated assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication. He received an effective sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Appellant alleges that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted aggravated assault; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication; and (3) the trial court erred in denying a sentence of split confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Michael Briars, et al. v. John Irving, et al.
W2022-01159-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge A. Blake Neill

Plaintiffs sued for injuries and damages allegedly resulting from an automobile accident.
The trial court dismissed one of two defendants based on the statute of limitations.
Although the complaint was filed within one year of the accident, the original summons
went unserved, and plaintiffs did not obtain issuance of new process until over a year after
the issuance of the previous process. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that, because the
automobile accident resulted in a criminal prosecution, the time period for issuance of new
process under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3 was extended. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Timothy Michael Crabtree
W2022-01008-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald E. Parish

The Defendant, Timothy Michael Crabtree, was convicted in the Henry County Circuit
Court of aggravated assault and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years
in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction because the evidence fails to show the victim suffered serious bodily injury and
that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Perry
M2022-00643-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Larry Wallace

A Cheatham County jury convicted the Defendant, Charles D. Perry, of two counts of rape
of a child, and the trial court entered an agreed effective sentence of fifteen years of
incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the prosecution was time-barred
because it was commenced outside the statute of limitations; (2) his verdict was not
unanimous; (3) the trial court deprived his right to present a defense by limiting expert
testimony; (4) the trial court erred when it admitted character evidence in violation of
Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his
convictions; and (6) the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors entitles him to a new
trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Samuel Adam Reese v. Lynette Erin Reese
E2022-01116-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dennis W. Humphrey

This appeal arises from a divorce. After trial, the trial court entered a final decree of
divorce with an attached Permanent Parenting Plan regarding the parties’ minor child. The
determination of child support was left blank. A supplemental order purported to
“bifurcate” the issue of child support and transfer the case from the Roane County IV-D
office to the Anderson County IV-D office. The father appeals. Since the issue of child
support was never resolved or adjudicated, there is no final, appealable judgment. The
appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Jon Vazeen v. Martin Sir
M2022-00273-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Don R. Ash

Former client sued his former attorney for legal malpractice and fraud. The trial court initially dismissed all claims, but was reversed on appeal as to the fraud claims. The trial court then held a bench trial and found in favor of the defendant attorney. In a second appeal, this Court affirmed the dismissal of all fraud claims except a fraud claim related to the hourly rate charged under the parties’ written contract. That claim was remanded to the trial court for purposes of consideration of the factors outlined in in Alexander v. Inman, 974 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1998). On remand, the trial judge denied the plaintiff’s efforts to disqualify him from the case and to enlarge the scope of the trial. A bench trial was eventually held, despite the plaintiff’s multiple efforts to postpone. After a late motion to continue was denied, the plaintiff did not attend trial. Following the bench trial, the trial court once again ruled in favor of the defendant attorney, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against him. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Benjamin McCurry v. Agness McCurry
E2023-00995-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas J. Wright

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final
appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

State of Tennessee v. Raghu Singh
W2022-01560-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris Craft

A Shelby County jury found the Defendant, Mr. Raghu Singh, guilty of two counts of
driving under the influence and one count of reckless driving. The trial court sentenced
the Defendant to an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, after service of
ten days in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally
insufficient to sustain his convictions for driving under the influence. He also asserts that
the trial court erred (1) in finding that the State had established a proper chain of custody
for his blood sample; and (2) by denying a motion to suppress statements he made at the
scene. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Nene Gloria Ananaba v. Okebugwu Sunju Ananaba
W2022-00443-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Magistrate Nancy Percer Kessler

Mother filed a petition alleging civil and criminal contempt against the father of her child
due to unpaid child support. After several continuances, including based on Mother’s
request for an in-person hearing, the juvenile court heard the matter remotely via ZOOM.
At the start of the hearing, the trial court denied Mother’s request for a continuance for an
in-person hearing. The trial court also ruled that it had the authority to choose whether
Mother would prosecute her action as civil contempt or criminal contempt. The trial court
ruled that Mother’s petition would be treated solely as a civil contempt matter, but then
refused to punish Father for his past willful failure to pay child support because he had
made a purge payment. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further
proceedings.

Mark T. Stinson, Sr. v. Mr. Cooper
W2023-00161-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

Appellant, Mark T. Stinson, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Chancery Court
that was entered on January 27, 2023. We determine that the January 27, 2023 order does
not constitute a final appealable judgment. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

State of Tennessee v. Amanda Jean Phillips
E2022-01699-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Kyle A. Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Zachary R. Walden

The Defendant, Amanda Jean Phillips, appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to “Set
Aside, Amend and/or Correct Improper and Unlawful Judgments.” The Defendant argues
(1) that her judgments are void due to noncompliance with the statutes and rules governing
the entry of judgment forms and (2) that she is entitled to relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule
of Criminal Procedure 36. Following our review, we have determined that we lack
jurisdiction to hear the Defendant’s voidness arguments and that the Defendant has waived
review of her Rule 36 claim. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

William Patrick Roberson A/K/A William Patrick Robinson v. State of Tennessee
W2022-01408-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bruce Irwin Griffey

The petitioner, William Patrick Robinson, appeals pro se from the Circuit Court of
Carroll County’s dismissal of his third request for post-conviction relief. Following
review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Jason White v. State of Tennessee
W2022-01437-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Robert Carter, Jr.

Petitioner, Jason White, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues: (1) the post-conviction court abused its discretion by failing to recuse itself; (2) the post-conviction court abused its discretion by denying Petitioner a full and fair post-conviction procedure; (3) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in numerous areas; and (4) he is entitled to relief based on cumulative error. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court, but remand the case to the post-conviction court for the entry of amended judgments that properly reflect the offenses for which Petitioner was indicted and convicted.

State of Tennessee v. Eleanor Grace Hoffman
M2022-00357-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Larry B. Stanley, Jr.

The Appellant, Eleanor Grace Hoffman, filed a motion to suppress challenging the search of her purse during a traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Appellant was convicted as charged by a Warren County jury of simple possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Appellant’s application for judicial diversion was granted, and she was sentenced to two concurrent terms of eleven months and twentynine days suspended to supervised probation after service of ten days’ imprisonment. A probation violation order was entered, and the Appellant conceded to violating the terms of probation before the trial court. The trial court revoked her probationary judicial diversion sentence, entered judgments of conviction for simple possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, and ordered the Appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days’ imprisonment, with the possibility of furlough to an inpatient drug treatment facility after service of ninety days’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. Alternatively, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred in revoking her diversionary probation and ordering service of her original sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and revocation of the Appellant’s probation but remand for the trial court to make findings concerning the consequence imposed for the revocation.