APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is negligence and wrongful death action brought be the decedent's estate and the surviving spouse against the apartments complex owner and management company where the accident occurred. The decedent died from profound injuries he sustained when he fell while attempting to remove tree branches that blocked the only path his disabled stepson used for ingress and egress to his apartment. The complaint asserted claims for negligence based on premise liability, negligence per se, and wrongful death. Upon the motion of the defendants, the trial court summarily dismissed all claims based on the finding that the defendants did not owe the decedent a duty of care because the accident was not foreseeable. The court also dismissed the surviving spouse's independent claim for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs appealed. We find that sufficient facts exist from which a trier of fact could reach a different conclusion than that found by the trial judge on the issues of foreseeability and duty. Accordingly, we reserve the decision to dismiss the wrongful death claim. We nevertheless affirm the dismissal of the spouse's independent claim for loss of consortium because it does not represent a claim for damages separate from the wrongful death action. Rather, "a claim for consortium. . .embodies one component of the decedent's pecuniary value of life." Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 207 (Tenn. 2002). Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Antwain D. Coleman, of aggravated
assault, domestic assault, and theft. The trial court imposed an effective seven-year
sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that
the evidence is insufficient to support his theft conviction and that the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s
judgments.

The Defendant, Herandus Washington, pleaded guilty to reckless vehicular homicide, a Class C felony.  See T.C.A. § 39-13-213(a)(1), (b)(1) (2018) (subsequently amended).  At the sentencing hearing, the Defendant sought judicial diversion.  The trial court denied diversion and imposed a five-year sentence, to be served on probation.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves an interstate custody matter. The mother and child reside in
Massachusetts while the father resides in Tennessee. The father attempted to obtain
custody of the child by filing an emergency petition in the Knox County Juvenile Court.
The juvenile court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The father
appealed the juvenile court’s decision to the Knox County Circuit Court which, also finding
a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal. We affirm.

In this divorce action, the parties have appealed the trial court’s classification of certain
assets as well as the court’s overall marital property distribution. The husband has also
appealed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife in conjunction with her
procurement and enforcement of an order of protection. Following review, we vacate the
trial court’s classification of certain real property assets as well as the court’s overall
marital property distribution. We remand this matter to the trial court for further
evidence to be presented concerning the values of one unimproved lot of real property
and the parties’ retirement assets and for the court to value and equitably distribute all of
the parties’ marital assets, including the two real properties in Alabama previously
classified as the husband’s separate property and the various retirement accounts. We
affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife related to her procurement and
enforcement of an order of protection against the husband.

This appeal arises from a father’s petition for modification of a parenting plan and modification of child support in a post-divorce action.  We have determined that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that there was not a material change of circumstances for purposes of modifying the residential parenting schedule under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-101(a)(2)(C).  We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects and remand for a determination of the children’s best interests under the applicable factors.

This appeal involves an interstate custody matter. The mother and child reside in
Massachusetts while the father resides in Tennessee. The father attempted to obtain
custody of the child by filing an emergency petition in the Knox County Juvenile Court.
The juvenile court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The father
appealed the juvenile court’s decision to the Knox County Circuit Court which, also finding
a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal. We affirm.

Plaintiff sues to enforce his perceived right to address the House of Representatives. Finding that the case is identical to a prior case in that it involves a court of competent jurisdiction, the same parties as a previous case, a prior final decision on the merits, and the same parties and cause of action, the trial court applied the doctrine of res judicata and dismissed the case. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the entry of an order of protection for stalking. The respondent
asserts that he did not receive the statutorily required notice of hearing and that the evidence
did not support a finding of stalking. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner. We
affirm.

Spencer L. Phillips, Defendant, claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying
probation or an alternative sentence and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case arises out of a vehicular accident between Ciera Besses (“Plaintiff”) and James
Killian (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages, seeking compensation for
past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of
enjoyment of life. Defendant admitted fault but challenged the reasonableness and
necessity of certain medical, hospital, and doctor bills itemized by Plaintiff. Defendant also
contended that some of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries were not causally related to the accident.
The jury awarded $16,720 to Plaintiff in damages, which represented $12,720 for medical
expenses; $3,000 for past physical pain and mental suffering; $1,000 for past loss of
enjoyment of life, and $0.00 for future physical pain and suffering and future loss of
enjoyment of life. Plaintiff filed a motion for additur and/or new trial, which the trial court
denied. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a
new trial. We have determined it did not. Thus, we affirm.

A husband and wife divorced after a short marriage. The trial court awarded a
disproportionate share of the marital property to the husband. The wife challenges the
court’s division and its denial of her request for attorney’s fees. Discerning no reversible
error, we affirm.

In April of 2013, Defendant, Yvette Adele Slee, was convicted of aggravated child abuse and attempted first degree murder for suffocating the victim, Defendant’s eight-month-old child. She was sentenced to an effective sentence of 22 years in incarceration. Subsequently, in May of 2018, the victim died as a result of complications from injuries originally sustained by the aggravated child abuse. Defendant was then indicted for first degree felony murder, the subject offense of this direct appeal. After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty as indicted. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is whether her conviction for first degree felony murder violates double jeopardy. After a review of the record, the briefs, and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by
clear and convincing evidence that three grounds for termination were proven against the
father: (1) abandonment by incarcerated parent for failure to visit; (2) substantial
noncompliance with a permanency plan; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume custody. The juvenile court also found that termination was in the
best interests of the children. The father appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Darrin Jeremiah Baker, appeals from his guilty pleaded convictions for
possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 gram of methamphetamine, a
Class B felony; attempted possession with the intent to sell or deliver less than fifteen
grams of heroin, a Class C felony; possession with the intent to sell or deliver less than
fifteen grams of fentanyl, a Class C felony; and driving under the influence, a Class A
misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417 (possession of heroin and fentanyl) (Supp.
2022), -17-434 (possession of methamphetamine) (2018), 55-10-401 (driving under the
influence) (2020), 39-12-101 (attempt) (2018). The Defendant pleaded guilty as a Range
I offender and agreed to an effective ten-year sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the
trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction.
On appeal, the Defendant contends that the court erred in denying alternative sentencing.
We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child. Jordan H.
(“Father”) and his wife Johnaysja S. (“Stepmother”) (“Petitioners,” collectively) filed a
petition in the Juvenile Court for Washington County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to
terminate the parental rights of Cynthia B. (“Mother”) to her minor son Genesis B. (“the
Child”). Mother has a history of criminal conduct involving the sale of illegal drugs. After
a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the
Child. The Juvenile Court found that the following grounds were proven against Mother
by clear and convincing evidence: abandonment by wanton disregard, persistent
conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The
Juvenile Court found further, also by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of
Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals, arguing in part that
despite her continued criminal conduct she has demonstrated a genuine desire to maintain
a relationship with the Child as evidenced by, for example, her filing a petition for visitation
and engaging in some visitation. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its
entirety.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three of her children. The
juvenile court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of five statutory
grounds for termination. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing
evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. On appeal, we determine that
some grounds do not support termination of parental rights. Still, clear and convincing
evidence supports at least one statutory ground for termination and the best interest
determination. So we affirm.

The defendant, Shannon Leigh Smith, appeals her Union County Circuit Court jury
conviction of second degree murder, arguing that the State improperly withheld favorable
and material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because the
withheld evidence was not material to the outcome of the case, we affirm.

Petitioner, Nemon Winton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  On appeal, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request specific jury instructions and for utilizing an improper trial strategy.  After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, an insurance provider, sought a declaratory judgment against the policy
holder, his wife, and his grandson, relieving the insurance company of the duty to defend
and indemnify the policy holder, his wife, and his grandson against a complaint brought by
the conservator of the grandson’s girlfriend for varying claims of negligence. The
insurance provider filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the grandson
constituted a “covered person” under the grandfather’s policy as an authorized driver and
that the grandson’s girlfriend constituted a “person residing in the same household as a
covered person,” triggering the policy’s household exclusion. Pursuant to the household
exclusion, which excluded liability coverage for bodily injury to “any covered person or
any person residing in the same household as a covered person,” the insurance provider
claimed that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the policy holder, his wife, and his
grandson. The trial court granted the insurance provider’s motion for summary judgment
in part and denied it in part.

The Petitioner, Alexander Jackson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of
his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions for two counts of rape and
his resulting sentence of nine years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that
he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review, we affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Darryl Robinson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his
post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions of aggravated robbery and
convicted felon in possession of a handgun and his resulting effective sentence of sixteen
years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction
court.

Defendant, Charles Bradford Lampley, was convicted by a Maury County jury of first
degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault resulting in death, for which he
received an effective sentence of life. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial
court erred in not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) the evidence is
insufficient as it relates to his conviction for first degree premediated murder; (3) the trial
court failed to exercise its mandatory function as the thirteenth juror as to his conviction
for first degree premeditated murder; (4) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury
on the issue of voluntary intoxication; (5) the prosecutor made numerous improper
references to his decision not to testify, shifted the burden of proof, and improperly offered
his opinion on the truth or falsity of evidence and on Defendant’s guilt during closing
argument; and (7) he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After a
thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. Two years after the
children were removed and found to be dependent and neglected, the Department of
Children’s Services petitioned for the termination of her parental rights. The trial court
found the existence of four grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to provide a
suitable home, abandonment by an incarcerated parent/wanton disregard, persistence of
conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody with
custody posing a risk of substantial harm to the children. Finding it also to be in the best
interest of the children, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights. Mother contends
these findings were in error. Finding no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Ambrus Gay, was charged in a five-count indictment with two counts of
aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of robbery. The case
proceeded to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the proof, the trial court partially granted
Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, reducing the robbery charge to the lesserincluded
charge of theft. The jury found Defendant guilty as charged on all counts, and
the trial court imposed an effective 10-year sentence. In this appeal as of right, Defendant
contends: 1) the trial court should have suppressed his confession based on a violation of
his Miranda rights; 2) the trial court should have suppressed his confession because it was
not voluntarily made; 3) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to sever the
offenses; and 4) the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated robbery
convictions because he had completed the thefts prior to producing a weapon. Discerning
no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.