APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Derrick Jerome Miller, appeals his Putnam County Criminal Court jury conviction of reckless endangerment, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a certain document, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred by denying him probation. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Tommy Lee Houser, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Ziberia Carero, of possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana with intent to deliver. The trial court merged the possession of cocaine convictions and merged the possession of marijuana convictions and sentenced the Appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent terms of twelve years and two years, respectively. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during his traffic stop, and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting rebuttal evidence of his subsequent drug-selling activities. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case to the trial court for correction of the judgments of conviction.

The Petitioner, Johnny Peterson, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

The Defendant, Quinton Wilkins, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony; employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt), 39-13-210 (2018) (second degree murder), 39-17-1324 (2014) (subsequently amended) (firearms possession), 39-13-102 (2018) (aggravated assault), 39-13-103 (2018) (reckless endangerment). After the appropriate merger, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for attempted second degree murder, seven years for the firearm conviction, and seven years for aggravated assault. The court ordered consecutive service, for an effective twenty-nine-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of a State’s witness, and (3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s demeanor. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Petitioner contends the trial judge should have recused herself but fails to state any grounds or facts to support his contention. Moreover, Petitioner failed to comply with Rule 10B by, inter alia, not attaching an affidavit that verified the specific factual grounds supporting disqualification of the trial judge. Due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with Rule 10B, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that mother’s parental rights should be terminated on the grounds of abandonment by the willful failure to support the child, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistence of conditions, severe child abuse, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. The trial court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the best interests of the child. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm.

This appeal involves Appellant City of Memphis’ (“the City”) decision to deny Appellee Pamela Pryor’s application for On-the-Job-Injury (“OJI”) benefits arising from the death of her husband while he was employed as a firefighter. On appeal, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) upheld the City’s denial of the OJI claim citing the absence of an autopsy report as required by the City’s OJI policy. On review, the trial court reversed the ALJ’s decision on its finding that the City’s OJI Policy PM 74-02(3), which required claimant to procure an autopsy, conflicted with the statutory presumption given firefighters in Tennessee Code Annotated section 7-51-201, and remanded the case to the ALJ to conduct a new hearing on the merits. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

In 1986, the Petitioner, Nicholas Todd Sutton, was convicted of the January 15, 1985 first degree murder of Carl Estep, which occurred while both were inmates at the Morgan County Regional Correctional Facility. At sentencing, the jury imposed the death penalty based upon the weight of three aggravating circumstances. The Petitioner’s conviction and death sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Sutton, 761 S.W.2d 763 (Tenn. 1988), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031 (1990). The Petitioner unsuccessfully pursued post-conviction relief, the denial of which was affirmed by this court. Nicholas Todd Sutton v. State, No. 03C01-9702-CR-00067, 1999 WL 423005 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 25, 1999), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 20, 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1216 (2000). The Petitioner then unsuccessfully pursued federal habeas corpus relief, the denial of which was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Sutton v. Bell, 645 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 933 (2012).

This is an appeal from an order finding the appellant in civil contempt and ordering her incarcerated until she agreed to remove a social media post. The appellant was incarcerated for four hours before she purged herself of contempt by agreeing to remove the post. On appeal, the appellant challenges the civil contempt finding. Because the appellant has purged herself of civil contempt and was released from incarceration, we deem the issue moot and dismiss this appeal.

This appeal arose from the trial court’s final order denying the father’s motion to set aside a prior agreed parentage order and agreed permanent parenting plan order (“PPP”) entered into by the father and the mother. The trial court determined that under relevant case law, it had “no duty to conduct any further hearing” regarding the parentage order and PPP because the court had on previous occasions conducted multiple hearings. The father subsequently appealed the trial court’s final order, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the best interest of the minor child. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

As part of this divorce action, Husband sought enforcement of an antenuptial agreement. Wife claimed the agreement was unenforceable because Husband failed to disclose a condominium he owned with a former girlfriend. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable because Husband did not enter the agreement in good faith. We conclude that Husband failed to meet his burden of proof at the evidentiary hearing. So we affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Serenity S., Hezeki S., Azaiah W., and Lyriq S., the minor children (“the Children”) of Angela W. (“Mother”) and William S. (“Father”). The Children were taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on March 30, 2017, upon investigation into allegations of environmental and educational neglect. The Anderson County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) subsequently adjudicated the Children dependent and neglected as to both parents on May 23, 2017. On July 11, 2018, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition as to both parents in an order entered on January 18, 2019.1 As pertinent to this appeal, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Mother had abandoned the Children by failing to visit them, (2) Mother had failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities and requirements of the permanency plans, (3) the conditions leading to the Children’s removal from Mother’s home persisted, and (4) Mother had failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody of or financial responsibility for the Children. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

A Chester County jury convicted the defendant, Jessica Lauren Smith, of felony child neglect, and the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty months in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction and argues the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we conclude there was insufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s conviction. However, as there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted felony child neglect, we reverse the judgment for felony child neglect, modify the conviction to attempted felony child neglect, and remand for a new sentencing hearing and entry of an amended judgment.

While a homeowner was standing on the water meter box in his yard, the concrete cover on the box moved unexpectedly, and the homeowner was injured. The homeowner sought compensation for his injuries from the county water authority. The water authority denied it had prior notice that the water meter box was dangerous or defective and alleged the comparative fault of the homeowner. After a bench trial, the trial court found the water authority had actual notice of the dangerous or defective condition of the water meter box and failed to take appropriate action. The court allocated 100% of the fault to the water authority and awarded the homeowner both economic and noneconomic damages. The water authority challenges the trial court’s findings on liability, comparative fault, and the amount of noneconomic damages. The water authority also claims that the trial court made several procedural errors. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.  

Employee fell onto his buttocks during the course and scope of his employment with Employer and experienced left hip and shoulder pain that later radiated to his right leg. After a course of treatment, the selected treating physician and a second-opinion physician opined Employee’s pain was attributable to a degenerative condition rather than to his work injury and assigned no impairment. Because the pain persisted, Employee’s personal physician referred him to an orthopedic surgeon who opined Employee’s fall ruptured a synovial cyst which aggravated his pre-existing spine condition. The orthopedic surgeon performed surgery and later assigned a twelve percent (12%) impairment rating. A physician who conducted an independent medical records review at Employer’s request sided with the selected physician as to causation and impairment; however, a physician who performed an independent medical examination at Employee’s request agreed with the orthopedic surgeon. Following a trial, the court awarded benefits having determined that Employee met his burden of establishing causation and overcame the statutory presumption afforded the selected physician’s causation opinion. Employer appealed. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Roy Brandon, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of possession with intent to sell heroin, a Class B felony; possession with intent to deliver heroin, a Class B felony; two counts of simple possession of Alprazolam, Class A misdemeanors; and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, Class D felonies, and was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A grocery store, the anchor tenant of a shopping center, objected to the planned construction of a retail auto parts store on an adjacent property, which fronted the shopping center. In letters to the developer, the grocery store claimed it had approval rights in the adjacent property by virtue of its lease. The developer sought declaratory relief to settle the dispute and sought damages against the grocery story under several theories, including slander of title. The grocery store answered and counterclaimed for attorney’s fees. At the conclusion of trial, the court granted the developer its requested declaratory relief, but it dismissed the developer’s claims for damages. The court also declined to award the grocery store attorney’s fees. On appeal, the grocery store claims error in the finding that it lacked approval rights over development of the adjacent property, either by virtue of its lease or equitable theories. The grocery store additionally challenges the denial of its request for attorney’s fees for successfully defending against the developer’s slander of title claim. Based on our review, the grocery store failed to establish it had approval rights over the adjacent property. We also conclude that attorney’s fees were not recoverable for successfully defending the slander of title claim. So we affirm.

The Petitioner, Johnny Wilkerson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his two convictions for aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective forty-year sentence. In this appeal, the Petitioner alleges that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to investigate his case, in failing to explain why he could not have a suppression hearing, and in failing to call an alibi witness at trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Douglas W. Curtis, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The appellant in this parenting dispute has appealed the trial court’s order and the incorporated permanent parenting plan, both of which the trial court entered on December 6, 2018. Having determined that the permanent parenting plan at issue is incomplete, we further determine that the order incorporating the parenting plan is not a final order. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This post-divorce appeal concerns the father’s petition to modify his spousal support obligation, to which the mother responded with her own motions concerning the father’s failure to exercise his co-parenting time with their disabled daughter as agreed. Following a hearing, the trial court reduced the father’s spousal support obligation but ordered him to remit payment to the mother for respite care in the event that he failed to exercise his co-parenting time. The father appeals. We affirm.

A Marshall County jury convicted the Petitioner, Dwayne Scott Franklin, of three counts of rape of a child, for which he received an effective sentence of sixty years imprisonment. See State v. Dewayne Scott Franklin, No. M2017-00180-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1100962 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2018). The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that lead counsel and co-counsel were ineffective in failing to call the Petitioner’s girlfriend as a witness at trial, in failing to request a bill of particulars, and in failing to request a formal election of offenses. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Madison County Grand Jury indicted Dwight Twarn Champion, Defendant, and Lena Virginia Cole, Co-Defendant, for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in counts one and two; simple possession of marijuana, a Schedule VI controlled substance, in count three; and possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia in count four. After a trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of facilitation of criminal attempt of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in count one, facilitation of criminal attempt of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver in count two, and simple possession of marijuana in count three. The jury was unable to reach a verdict in count four, and a nolle prosequi was entered on that count. The trial court merged counts one and two and, pursuant to an agreement with the State, sentenced Defendant as a Range III career offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction with a sixty percent release eligibility for merged counts one and two and to eleven months and twenty-nine days with a seventy-five percent release eligibility for count three, to be served concurrently to counts one and two, for a total effective sentence of twelve years at sixty percent. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial or verdict of acquittal, and the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions and that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Defendant, Darcell Wright, was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault as lesser-included offenses of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, respectively. The trial court imposed sentences of ten years for each conviction and ordered that these terms be served consecutively to one another, as well as consecutively to prior sentences of the Defendant’s. On appeal, the Defendant, relying on principles of double jeopardy, contends that the trial court erred in failing to merge his sentences for voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. However, our review of the record reveals that the Defendant failed to raise this issue in a motion for new trial; thereby, waiving full appellate review. Additionally, we conclude that plain error review of the issue is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.