APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Kemontea Dovon McKinney, appeals his Robertson County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and theft, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting his pretrial statement into evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the evidence established that he acted in self-defense.  Because the trial court erred by admitting the defendant’s statement into evidence and because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s convictions are reversed and remanded for a new trial.  Because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree premeditated murder but sufficient to support a conviction of second degree murder, that conviction must be modified to one of second degree murder.  The evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdicts of felony murder, aggravated robbery, and theft.  Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on two counts of felony murder, one count of second degree murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and, one count of theft of property.

This is an appeal from a governmental tort liability case in which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant governmental entity on the basis that it retained its immunity.  Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.  Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the trial court failed to consider their expert affidavit.  On appeal, we reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, Terry Lee McAnulty, appeals his Tipton County Circuit Court jury conviction of aggravated vehicular homicide, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident that caused the death of the victim. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Adam Dewayne Holmes, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of facilitation of possession with intent to sell heroin, facilitation of possession with intent to deliver heroin, possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone, possession with intent to deliver less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drugfree zone, and simple possession, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of what he alleges to be an unlawful vehicle search. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Timothy Howard Smartt, challenges the revocation of his community corrections placement on grounds that the sentence in case number 277012 expired before the issuance of the revocation warrant and that the court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of the total remaining sentences in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Edwin Alfonso Reeves, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of Count I, criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony; and Count II, possession with the intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a
drug-free zone, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-212 (2018) (criminally negligent homicide); 39-17- 417(a)(4), (c)(2)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance); 39-17-432 (b)(1)(B) (establishing drug-free zones) (2018) (subsequently amended). The Defendant also pleaded guilty to Count III, possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a drug-free zone. The court sentenced the Defendant to serve two years for criminally negligent homicide, four years for one possession conviction, and three years for the other possession conviction. The court imposed the sentences consecutively to each other, for an effective nine-year sentence, to be served consecutively to a sentence the Defendant was serving at the time of sentencing. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions in Counts I and II of criminally negligent homicide and possession of a Schedule II drug, and that the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The driver of a vehicle covered by a general automobile liability policy notified the insurance carrier of a potential uninsured motorist claim. The insurance carrier responded that the named insured had rejected in writing uninsured motorist coverage for vehicles in use in Tennessee. The driver claimed that the prior rejection was no longer effective because the named insured had submitted a new application during the renewal process. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the policy did not include uninsured motorist coverage. We conclude that the prior written rejection remained in effect when the policy was renewed. And because the named insured did not submit a new application in connection with the renewal transaction, we affirm.

The Appellant, Gary Dewayne Glasgow, was convicted in the Hamblen County Criminal Court of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to eight years in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error by ruling he could not introduce the victim’s prior inconsistent statement into evidence and that the trial court erred by using an out-of-state conviction to enhance his sentencing range. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff—a citizen of the City of Manchester, Tennessee, who was “the next highest vote getter” for Alderman, but not elected in the most recent election—contends he is entitled to fill a mid-term vacancy on the Board of Aldermen. The dispute arose when the City’s Board of Aldermen announced it was accepting applications to fill the vacant seat on the Board. In the Complaint that followed, the plaintiff asked the court to declare the proper procedure for filling a mid-term Board vacancy under the City’s Charter. The trial court dismissed the Complaint pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), explaining that the Complaint failed to state a claim because the unambiguous language in the Charter did not entitle the plaintiff to the vacant seat. The court also ruled the plaintiff did not have standing “as a citizen.” On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court should have declared the rights of the parties instead of dismissing the declaratory judgment action under Rule 12.02(6) and asserts that he had standing as the “next highest vote getter” in the last election. While motions to dismiss “are rarely appropriate in declaratory judgment actions,” Cannon Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Wade, 178 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citation omitted), the plaintiff has not shown that he was prejudiced by the decision. This is because, after thoroughly analyzing the City’s Charter in the context of the facts stated in the Complaint, the court concluded that the Charter was unambiguous and provided no circumstance in which the “next highest vote getter” from the previous election would be entitled to fill a mid-term vacancy. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter judgment holding that Plaintiff is not entitled to fill the vacancy on the Board of Alderman under Article IV, §6(c) by virtue of the fact that he was the next highest vote getter at the election preceding the occurrence of a vacancy.

A Shelby County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Johnny Ingle, for aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and domestic assault. Before these charges were resolved, the Defendant filed a habeas corpus petition, which the trial court summarily dismissed as inappropriately filed before there was a final conviction. Based upon the Defendant’s frustration with his case, the trial court held a hearing to address the Defendant’s complaints. During the hearing, the trial court found the Defendant in contempt of court and sentenced him to ten days. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it found him in contempt of court. Our review of the record revealed that the Defendant failed to timely file his appeal, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s action was untimely and violated the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for White County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Hope H. (“Mother”) to her minor son Zian L. (“the Child”). After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights on three grounds and finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest, all by the standard of clear and convincing evidence. Mother appeals, arguing that the Juvenile Court erred in its best interest determination. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety.

To avoid foreclosure, a homeowner and her daughter made a deal to sell their home. The purchasers paid off the mortgage and, after acquiring title, leased the home back to the daughter with an option to purchase. When the daughter failed to make timely lease payments, the purchasers sued for possession of the home. The (former) homeowner filed her own suit, alleging that the transaction was an equitable mortgage subject to rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act. She also alleged that the transaction violated Tennessee’s Foreclosure-Related Rescue Services Act. Following a trial, the court agreed that the transaction created an equitable mortgage that violated the Truth in Lending Act. So, under the federal act, the court rescinded the transaction and awarded damages and attorney’s fees. The court dismissed the claims under the Foreclosure-Related Rescue Services Act after determining it was inapplicable. On appeal, we conclude that the Foreclosure-Related Rescue Services Act, rather than the Truth in Lending Act, applied. We affirm the trial court’s rescission of the transaction under the state act. We reverse the awards under the Truth in Lending Act.

This is a negligence case arising out of an injury suffered by the plaintiff when he fell off a ladder at the defendant’s cabin which was then under construction. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish his claim. The plaintiff appeals. We conclude that there is no dispute of material fact and that summary judgment in favor of the defendant was properly granted. Accordingly, we affirm.

This extraordinary appeal arises from an alleged biological father’s complaint for “emergency custody,” injunctive relief, and to set child support, filed in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The chancery court immediately entered a restraining order requiring that the child either remain in Shelby County or be returned to Shelby County in the event she had been removed. It also entered a temporary injunction requiring the mother to place the child in the custody of the alleged father pending further orders. Counsel for the mother filed a notice of limited appearance and a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim. The mother submitted affidavits and other proof in support of her position that she and the child were residents of California and had not been present in the State of Tennessee when the complaint was filed or since, so there was no basis for asserting temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-219. She also argued that the alleged father had no right to custody of the child because he had never obtained an order establishing paternity. At a hearing, the chancellor orally denied the mother’s motion to dismiss. The mother filed an application for an extraordinary appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and requested a stay of the trial court proceedings. The alleged father then filed an amended complaint. On the same date, this Court stayed the proceedings in the trial court and directed the mother to obtain the entry of a written order memorializing the chancellor’s oral ruling. Thereafter, the chancery court entered a lengthy written order denying the mother’s motion to dismiss on all grounds asserted. This Court granted the mother’s application for an extraordinary appeal and framed the single issue as whether the alleged father had standing to file the complaint for emergency custody, for injunctive relief, and to set child support in Shelby County Chancery Court. We now vacate the trial court’s orders exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction, reverse in part the order denying the motion to dismiss, and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal involves a finding of civil contempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-104 for Husband’s failure to adhere to an alimony provision in a marital dissolution agreement incorporated in a final decree of divorce. The trial court awarded Wife attorney’s fees and expenses associated with the enforcement of the alimony provision in the marital dissolution agreement and finding of civil contempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-9-104 and 36-5-103(c). Husband appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendants, Jalean Robert Williams and Markeil Linskey Williams, for one count of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of felony murder. Per a negotiated plea agreement, the defendants pled guilty to one count of second-degree murder for which they each received a sentence of thirty years to be served at 100%. The defendants also agreed to have the trial court determine whether their sentence in the instant matter would be served concurrently or consecutively to a sentence of life in prison plus fourteen years they were currently serving in Case No. 2017- A-296. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive terms. On appeal, the defendants contend the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive terms. After a thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a civil action by a widow against her deceased husband’s daughter to set aside a 2013 warranty deed pursuant to which the husband conveyed his childhood home to his adult children from a previous marriage. The real property, located in Putnam County, Tennessee, was acquired by the decedent in 1972, fourteen years prior to the marriage to his widow. In this action against the decedent’s only surviving issue, his daughter, the widow sought to, inter alia, establish a constructive or resulting trust and set aside the deed as a fraudulent conveyance pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 31-1-105. The widow asserted that the conveyance was made fraudulently with an intent to defeat or reduce her claim for a distributive share of his net estate. Upon the motion of the decedent’s daughter, the trial court summarily dismissed all of the widow’s claims. This appeal followed. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Antonio Dewayne Sivels, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2017 conviction upon his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received a twenty-year sentence as a Range I offender. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition after determining it was untimely. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Ronald David Harris, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty pleas. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

The Appellant, the State of Tennessee, appeals the Cocke County Circuit Court order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment “in the interest of justice.” Upon review, we remand for entry of corrected judgments but otherwise affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment.

A Montgomery County jury convicted Defendant, Deandre Marrece Ellis, of second degree murder, tampering with evidence, and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon with a predicate felony involving force or violence, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty-one years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to his conviction for tampering with evidence. He asserts that, when he placed the murder weapon in water inside a toilet tank in a friend’s apartment, he intended only to conceal his possession of the gun and that the State failed to prove that his intent was to hinder the police investigation by impairing the gun’s “verity, legibility, or availability as evidence.” Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence.

A Putnam County jury convicted the defendant, Martin Riley, III, of felony evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class D felony, and the trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statutory defense available under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-603(b)(2). After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case concerns the restoration of voting rights of a Tennessee citizen who was convicted of a felony in Virginia and subsequently granted clemency by the Governor of Virginia. Because the voting applicant did not provide evidence that he paid outstanding court costs, restitution, and/or child support as is required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29- 202, the election commission denied his application to vote. The voting applicant appealed the election commission’s decision to the circuit court. The circuit court upheld the election commission’s decision as valid. We agree with the trial court and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal arises from a divorce action, in which the wife’s conservator alleged that the husband had been dissipating marital assets and had withdrawn money from joint accounts. As a result, the trial court ordered the husband to deposit the withdrawn funds with the court’s clerk and master. The wife passed away before the trial court could adjudicate the divorce action. The husband filed a motion requesting that the court return the funds to him because the divorce action had abated upon the wife’s death. The trial court dismissed the suit but denied the husband’s motion and ordered the clerk and master to continue holding the funds until they could be transferred to the probate court upon the filing of a petition to probate the wife’s estate. The husband has appealed. Having determined that the trial court erred by exercising subject matter jurisdiction over the disposition of the funds after the divorce action had abated, we reverse the trial court’s decision to withhold the funds from the husband and retain them with the clerk and master.