APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Audrey Downs, entered “best interest” pleas to felony murder and aggravated rape pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and twentyfive years. In 2002, the Petitioner successfully petitioned for DNA testing of a condom collected from the scene where the victim’s body was discovered, and the results excluded the Petitioner as a contributor to the DNA. Because the State subsequently introduced evidence that the condom was unrelated to the crime, the Petitioner was denied permission to reopen his post-conviction petition. The Petitioner sought further testing of the condom to determine whether the victim’s DNA could be recovered, in an attempt to link it to the crime. The trial court summarily denied further testing, and this court remanded for the trial court to conduct the required analysis of the statutory factors. State v. Audrey Downs, No. W2018-00391-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 6650597, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 18, 2018), no perm. app. filed. On remand, the petition was again summarily dismissed, and the Petitioner appeals. We conclude that the petition did not allege a prima facie case for DNA testing under the statute, and we accordingly affirm the dismissal.

The Petitioner, Lajuan Harbison, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis, wherein he challenged his conviction for attempted second degree murder. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to investigate and assert a claim of self-defense. Relative to the error coram nobis petition, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by finding that new evidence from the victim, who recanted his trial testimony and averred that he was the primary aggressor rather than the Petitioner, was not credible. Following our review, we affirm.

The principal issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether intentional misrepresentations made by health care providers to induce a prospective patient to engage the health care providers’ services are within the purview of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (“the Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101 to -122. The complaint filed by the patient, Donna Cooper (“Mrs. Cooper”), and her husband alleges that Dr. Mason Wesley Mandy (“Dr. Mandy”) and Rachelle Norris (“Ms. Norris”) with NuBody Concepts, LLC, intentionally misrepresented that Dr. Mandy was a board-certified plastic surgeon and, based on their misrepresentation, Mrs. Cooper gave Dr. Mandy her consent to perform the surgery. Following “painful, disastrous results,” the plaintiffs asserted four claims: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) medical battery; (3) civil conspiracy; and (4) loss of consortium. Defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the presuit notice and filing requirements of the Act, specifically Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-121 and -122. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the Act did not apply. This interlocutory appeal followed. We hold that Mrs. Cooper is entitled to proceed on her claims of intentional misrepresentation and civil conspiracy because the alleged misrepresentations were inducements made prior to the existence of a patient-physician relationship; thus, the claims were not related to “the provision of . . . health care services.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101(a)(1). We also affirm its ruling on the medical battery claim because a physician’s misrepresentation of a material fact, if proven, may vitiate consent, and, without consent, the very act of touching Mrs. Cooper may constitute an unlawful and offensive act that is not related to the provision of health care services. See Holt v. Alexander, No. W2003-02541-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 94370, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2005). Further, we affirm the trial court’s ruling on Mr. Cooper’s claim for loss of consortium because, as the trial court held, his claims relate to Dr. Mandy’s and Ms. Norris’s false representations of Dr. Mandy’s credentials, not to a provision of, or a failure to provide, a health care service. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in all respects and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This case involves an attempt by a former shareholder of a corporation to bring suit on behalf of the corporation on the basis of a contractual assignment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that there was no valid assignment of the corporation’s rights and that any individual claims asserted by the former shareholder were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The former shareholder appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Marvin Christopher Long, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his convictions of possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine in a drug-free school zone and conspiracy to commit the same, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This case presents an appeal as of right from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. The Petitioner is serving an eight-year sentence for a jury conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The Petitioner asserts that Counsel’s failure to properly investigate or prepare for trial constitutes the ineffective assistance of counsel. The Petitioner, however, failed to provide clear and convincing proof at the post-conviction hearing to support his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The petitioner, Elvis Louis Marsh, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover payments allegedly due under an agreement to sell his membership interest in a corporation. Following a bench trial, the trial court agreed with the defendant corporation’s contention that the “additional consideration” provision of the agreement was void and unenforceable because it was not supported by consideration. The trial court determined that the corporation received no consideration in exchange for its promise to make annual payments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed. Upon thorough review, we conclude that sufficient consideration supported the agreement, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment in that regard. The balance of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

After a bench trial, the Defendant, Austin Forkpa, was convicted of resisting arrest, for which he received a six-month sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, specifically alleging that he did not intentionally use force to prevent or obstruct an arrest and, alternatively, that he was acting in self-defense based upon the officers’ use of excessive force. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendants appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff corporation, the effect of which was to accord full faith and credit to a New York judgment based on a confession of judgment, or cognovit note. Defendants argue that the foreign judgment should not be enrolled in Tennessee because it is contrary to public policy, based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 25-2-101(a), which prohibits the use of prelitigation confessions of judgment and declares void any judgment based upon such a device. After reviewing the record and case law, we hold that the Constitution’s full faith and credit mandate requires enrollment of the foreign judgment so long as Defendants validly waived their due process rights. Accordingly, we affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate a father’s parental rights based on abandonment by failure to support; abandonment by failure to visit; abandonment by wanton disregard; substantial noncompliance with permanency plans; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child. The trial court granted the petition, finding that the Department proved the alleged grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that terminating the father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The father appeals the trial court’s conclusion that terminating his parental rights is in the best interests of the child. We affirm. 

The Defendant, Brandon Luke Baron, appeals from the Cumberland County Criminal Court’s denial of his request for judicial diversion following his guilty plea to child abuse, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-15-401 (2014) (subsequently amended). The court imposed the agreed-upon two-year sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve it in the Department of Correction. The Defendant contends that the court erred in denying judicial diversion. We conclude that the trial court failed to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors in accord with State v. Electroplating, 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), and State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996), but upon de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying judicial diversion.

Following a public reprimand of the trial judge presiding over her divorce, Wife filed a motion to recuse the trial judge pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The trial court denied the motion, and Wife appealed to this Court. Thereafter, the presiding judge of the Thirteenth Judicial District entered an order transferring the case to another judge in order to “equitably distribute the case load[.]” Wife then filed a notice in this Court seeking direction as to whether the appeal is moot. Following our review, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

The Defendant, Martell Smith, was convicted of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine and of the delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both occurring in a drug-free school zone, and he received a sentence of thirty years in prison. On appeal, he asserts that his convictions should be reversed because the State did not prove that the transaction occurred within the requisite distance of the school or that the educational establishment at issue was a school under statute, because the prosecutor committed misconduct in his opening statements, and because the trial court refused to deliver his requested special instructions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The trial court revoked the community corrections sentence of the Defendant, Jeffrey Brian Gwaltney, and ordered that he serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that, while he did violate his alternative sentence, the trial court’s full revocation of his fifteen-year sentence was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this appeal arising out of the parties’ divorce, the Husband raises issues pertaining to the court’s classification, valuation, and division of the marital estate, as well as the court’s award of attorney’s fees to Wife. Upon our review, we vacate those parts of the judgment that awarded a lien on real property belonging to LLCs in which Husband had 100 percent ownership interest as well as an award to Wife of an interest in a contingent contractual claim against the United States Government that is an asset of an LLC in which Husband had 100 percent ownership interest. Additionally, in light of this Court’s determination that the contractual claim is an asset of an LLC owned 100 percent by Husband, we conclude that the record requires the court to reconsider the valuation of the parties’ business interests in the LLC that has the contractual claim. Although the trial court must necessarily consider the impact that the contractual claim has on the parties’ net marital business interests, we note that the court’s current calculations, which are divorced from a proper consideration of the impact of the contractual claim, overvalued the net marital business interests based upon its own findings. In light of the fact that the case is being remanded for further consideration of the valuation of the parties’ net marital business interests, we also vacate the trial court’s equitable division of the estate and its award of attorney’s fees to Wife and remand for further consideration. We also decline to award Wife her attorney’s fees on appeal. The balance of the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant, Marvin Glynn Allen, appeals his conviction for DUI, fourth offense, arguing that, based on the plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-405(a), his charge should have been DUI, third offense. After a thorough review of the record, applicable case law, and the legislative history, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the summary dismissal of an inmate’s petition for declaratory judgment on the calculation of his sentence expiration date. The inmate contended that each of his consecutive sentences should have begun automatically upon the expiration of the prior sentence’s period of ineligibility for release. The trial court found the material facts were undisputed and concluded that the Tennessee Department of Correction correctly calculated the sentences. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

The Petitioner, Rodriccus Funzie, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder. Over a year after this court affirmed his conviction, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court subsequently denied the petition on its merits. Following our review of the record and relevant law, we conclude the petition was untimely, and, therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a health care liability action against a long-term care facility.  The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff did not provide the long-term care facility with pre-suit notice of her claim as required by statute.  The plaintiff argues that the notice she mailed to the facility’s administrator at the facility’s business address satisfied the statutory requirement.  Because her letter was not directed to the facility, we affirm the dismissal of her complaint. 

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Wilson, of first degree felony murder, criminal attempt to commit second degree murder, aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Appellant, Glyn Terrance Dale, Sr., appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court's summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by increasing the Appellant' s sentence at the resentencing hearing; (2) counsel abandoned him during his resentencing hearing; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Robert T. McLeod, Defendant, entered a best interest guilty plea to five counts of violating the sex offender registry, one count of violating community supervision, and one count of tampering with evidence with an effective sentence of three years. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered Defendant to serve his sentence in incarceration. After a review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. Amy B. (“Mother”) is the mother of the minor child Arianna B. (“the Child”). At Mother’s request, Kayla A. (“Petitioner”), the Child’s paternal aunt, assumed temporary custody of the Child. Petitioner later filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights. After trial, the Trial Court entered an order finding that Petitioner had proven the ground of failure to support and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals, arguing among other things that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1), as amended in 2018, is unconstitutional for shifting the burden of proof on willfulness to parents. As Mother failed to raise this issue below and the statute is not obviously unconstitutional on its face, we decline to consider Mother’s tardy constitutional challenge. We find the ground of failure to support was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and, by the same standard, that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm.

Father living in California had his parental rights terminated by default judgment. Father appealed, and we vacate the termination because the trial court failed to conduct a best interest analysis.