APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Crystal Lee Martin, appeals the order of the trial court revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her original six-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm revocation of the defendant’s probation but reverse the trial court’s imposition of the original sentence and remand for the trial court to make findings concerning the consequence imposed for the revocation in accordance with State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022).

The petitioner, Joe G. Manley, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In this custody case, the trial court adopted a parenting plan that ordered equal parenting time. The father appeals, seeking a reversal of the award of equal parenting time, an increase in the mother’s monthly income for child support purposes, payment of one-half the childcare costs, custody on alternating July the fourth holidays, and attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

This is a healthcare liability/wrongful death case. Appellees, healthcare providers, alleged that appellant abused the discovery process in failing to make her expert available for deposition within the time set by the trial court’s scheduling order. Appellant moved for amendment of the scheduling order and for continuance of the trial date. The trial court denied appellant’s motions and granted appellees’ motion to exclude appellant’s expert. The exclusion of appellant’s expert resulted in the trial court granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment, thus dismissing appellant’s lawsuit. Under the circumstances, the trial court’s exclusion of appellant’s expert (and the resulting dismissal of her lawsuit) was too harsh a punishment. Vacated and remanded.

Matthew Cole Welch, Defendant, was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated assault. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder and not guilty of aggravated assault. The trial court denied a motion for new trial and Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder and that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury with a self-defense instruction. After a review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree murder and that Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction where the proof established that Defendant had a duty to retreat and failed to do so. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant, as personal guarantor for a third party, signed a credit agreement with appellee. After obtaining a default judgment against the third party in a separate lawsuit, appellee filed suit in the general sessions court to collect the judgment from appellant as the third party’s guarantor. Appellee obtained a default judgment against appellant, and appellant appealed to the circuit court. Appellant did not respond to appellee’s request for admissions. Appellee moved for summary judgment, arguing that appellant’s failure to respond to the request for admissions deemed them admitted and the admissions provided the basis for the undisputed material facts in support of the motion. Appellant failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, and award appellee damages for frivolous appeal, including appellate attorney’s fees

This appeal arises from a legal malpractice action filed by Terry J. Lee (“Plaintiff”) on July 11, 2024, against several attorneys who represented him at various times and in different aspects of his defense of a multi-count indictment and the appeal of his 2020 conviction on all counts, including kidnapping. Plaintiff asserted a cause of action for legal malpractice against the defendants, claiming that they “failed to investigate plaintiff’s [criminal] case to know that the court [Williamson County Criminal Court] did not have territorial jurisdiction to prosecute him on the kidnapping charge.” Plaintiff was convicted in 2020 and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction on all grounds effective January 26, 2023, when mandate issued. See State v. Lee, No. M2021-01084-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 16843485 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2022). After noting that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims, codified in Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-104(c)(1), requires that the action be filed “within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued,” and that the claims accrued more than one year prior to the commencement of this action, the trial court dismissed the complaint as time barred. Plaintiff contends that this was error. Finding no error, we affirm.

Following a mechanical failure, an employee parked his tractor-trailer on the shoulder of an interstate highway.  As result of delays in the repair of the tractor-trailer, the vehicle had been on the shoulder for at least seven hours when a driver crashed into the parked tractor-trailer.  Two of the driver’s passengers, the driver’s son and his son’s fiancée, died.  The estates of the deceased and their shared minor child (the Plaintiffs) filed a tort suit against the driver and also against the driver of the tractor-trailer and his trucking company employer.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant tractor-trailer driver and his employer.  In doing this, the trial court based its decision upon what it termed a special rule of Tennessee tort law called the Carney Rule, a reference to this court’s decision in Carney v. Goodman, 270 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1954).  In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied upon an understanding of the Carney decision set forth in several federal court decisions.  The Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in its application of the Carney Rule.  We agree and reverse the trial court’s decision, remanding for further proceedings. 

The Defendant, John Edward Roach, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of three drug-related offenses for which he received an effective sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-425 (a)(1)-(2). The Defendant argues that the State failed to establish (1) that the items seized from the search of his home constituted drug paraphernalia and (2) that the Defendant intended to use any of the seized items for an illicit purpose. Upon our review, we affirm.

Petitioner, Darius Mack, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition without first appointing counsel because his petition presented a colorable claim for relief and the issues were not previously determined. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition as it stated a colorable claim and warranted the appointment of counsel. Thus, we reverse the order of summary dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

Tennessee Bonding Company (“Tennessee Bonding”) claims that the trial court erred by temporarily suspending its bonding authority for thirty days and then restricting its bonding authority for a period of one year for violating local bail bonding rules that required a source hearing for bonds of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) or more. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Robert King Vaughn, Jr., appeals his convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated rape, for which he received a total effective sentence of 120 years’ confinement. Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder; (2) no reasonable trier of fact could find that he failed to establish the insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument by misstating Tennessee law and vouching for witnesses during the State’s closing argument. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this case involving termination of the parents’ parental rights to their three minor children, the trial court found that two statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence: (1) abandonment by failure to financially support the children and (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the children. The trial court further found that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In 2023, the Defendant, Raymond Scott Knox, pleaded guilty to eleven counts of methamphetamine and weapons related charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of sixty five years of incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced him.  After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The Petitioner, Timothy A. Baxter, appeals from the habeas corpus court’s summary denial
of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas
corpus court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on the merits of the allegations raised in
his petition, and in a related argument, by failing to order the trial court to award additional
pretrial jail credits on the underlying conviction. We affirm the judgment of the habeas
corpus court.

Defendant, Darrell Scott Wallis, was indicted by a Maury County Grand Jury on three counts of automobile burglary. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to one count of automobile burglary to receive a Range II sentence at thirty-five percent with the trial court to determine the length of sentence and manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve three years and six months, suspended to probation after service of twelve months of incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the split confinement sentence. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Kevin Harris, appeals his Cheatham County convictions for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child. He contends on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish penetration; and (3) the prosecutor committed multiple instances of improper argument during closing by (a) commenting on Defendant’s failure to testify and (b) vouching for the victim’s credibility. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, William Read, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his eleven-year and six-month sentence in confinement.  Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. 

The petitioner, Jaquarious D. Carpenter, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Terrion Avantae Jones, of one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, one count of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of four years to be served as three years in confinement at 100% with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He also contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this parental termination case, the mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, Heavenly M. The trial court found that four grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. The mother appealed. We affirm the trial court’s finding that four grounds were properly pled and proven: the grounds of abandonment for failure to support, abandonment for failure to visit, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child. We also affirm the finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

A Decatur County jury convicted the Petitioner, Brendan Nathan Morgan, of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of ten years imprisonment. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. In relevant part, the Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation, failed to adequately communicate with him, and failed to review the pretrial discovery with him before trial. After holding a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Mitchell Hopkins, of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault while acting in concert with two or more people, reckless endangerment by discharging a firearm into an occupied habitation, and the employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motions for a severance and for a mistrial and in admitting statements from a non-testifying codefendant; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting a video compilation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his third petition for post-conviction relief because it was time-barred. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.