APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal in a slip and fall case. The plaintiff fell in a restaurant bathroom due to water on the floor. According to the plaintiff, the water was steadily dripping from a utility faucet located beneath the bathroom vanity. The plaintiff argues that the existence of the utility faucet was a dangerous condition such that the restaurant had a duty to either remedy it or warn of its existence. The trial court granted summary judgment to the restaurant, concluding that the existence of the faucet was not a dangerous condition. We agree and affirm the decision of the circuit court.

This consolidated appeal comes to us following the passage of the Public Safety Act (“the PSA”), which, as relevant here, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-28-301,-306, changed how non-criminal or “technical” violations of probation are handled in Tennessee. These provisions require the Tennessee Department of Probation and Parole (“the department”) to develop, among other things, a single system of graduated sanctions for technical violations of community supervision and an administrative review process for objections by the probationer to imposition of such sanctions. Prior to accepting the Defendants’ guilty pleas, the trial court expressed concern regarding the implementation of the PSA, as these consolidated cases were the first in its district to which the graduated sanctions of the PSA would apply. The Defendants then objected to the imposition of the PSA as a mandatory condition of their probation and “request[ed] that the Court find certain of the provisions of T.C.A. § 40-28-301 through § 40-28-306, relative to sentences of probation, to be facially unconstitutional, and, therefore, decline to incorporate them within the judgment.” Specifically at issue are the provisions (1) mandating trial courts to include as a condition of probation that the department supervising the individual may impose graduated sanctions for violations of probation; and (2) the extent to which the department’s administrative process to review graduated sanctions contested by supervised individuals complies with principles of due process. After a hearing, the trial court issued an extensive order finding these sections of the PSA violated the separation of powers doctrine and principles of due process and equal protection. It is from this order that the State appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I fully concur with Judge McMullen’s opinion. I write separately in order to elaborate on some of the details on the Public Safety Act of 2016 (“Public Safety Act”) which this court concludes violates the Tennessee Constitution. I do not take any pleasure when, after a thorough review of the statutes, the Tennessee Constitution, and applicable case law, I am compelled to conclude that statutes passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor violate provisions of our state’s constitution. I do not doubt the good intentions of the executive and legislative branches of our state government in establishing Section 14 of the Public Safety Act. Only the portion of the Public Safety Act found presently in T.C.A. § 40-28-301-306 pertaining to probation is deemed unconstitutional by this court. The provisions are contained solely in Section 14 of ch. 906 of the 2016 Public Acts.

The purchaser of automated cake-line equipment filed this action against the seller alleging breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On the seller’s motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely.  Because we conclude that the complaint was filed after the applicable limitations periods, either as agreed to by the parties or set by statute, we affirm.

The posture of this matter is that, as the Defendant arrived in the trial court to enter his plea of guilty and be placed on probation, the trial court announced to the parties that the court wanted to be “educated” as to the workings of the PSA, to which the Defendant would be subject. As the majority opinion in this matter explains, the practical effect of the PSA is that certain alleged infractions of the probation requirements would not go to the court but, rather, would be handled by a probation officer. Subsequently, a hearing was held in this matter at which a probation officer testified regarding the general workings of the PSA. The Defendant, having not yet pled guilty, was not yet subject to the PSA provisions; and defense counsel had not questioned its constitutionality. One week later, the trial court filed its lengthy and detailed order, finding that the constitutionality of the PSA was ripe for the court’s consideration, and concluding that, were the Defendant subject to its provisions, his rights to due process and equal protection of the law would be violated.

The Tennessee Board of Education (“the Board”) denied approval of Bethel University’s (“Bethel”) educator preparation program (“EPP”). After unsuccessfully pursuing remedies under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA), Bethel sought judicial review of the Board’s action. The trial court found that the Board Policy 5.504, relied upon by the Board in its decision, was invalid and reinstated approval of Bethel’s EPP. The Board appeals, asserting 5.504 is a valid policy within the meaning of the UAPA and that the court erred in reinstating Bethel’s EPP. We affirm the trial court’s holding that 5.504 is a rule within the meaning of the UAPA and, since it was not promulgated as a rule in accordance with the UAPA, it is invalid and could not be used as a basis of denying approval of Bethel’s EPP. Further, we have determined that the court exceeded its authority in ordering reinstatement of Bethel’s EPP; we vacate the decision in that regard and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to remand the case to the Board for further consideration of Bethel’s approval status as an EPP.  

Petitioner, Daetrus Pilate, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief claiming that his confession was coerced and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in Case No. 11-05220. After appointment of counsel, an amended petition was filed claiming that Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in Case No. 11-05220 and in Case No. 12-01054. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Martin Dean “Cub” Meeks, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition seeking to overturn his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The Petitioner alleged that trial counsel was deficient in failing to obtain expert evidence, but he did not present any expert testimony at the post-conviction hearing. Because the Petitioner has not shown that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on February 20, 2015. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the judgment as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Robert Taylor, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, claiming that the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions of second degree murder, and that the sentence imposed was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, William Shannon Gresham, was indicted by the Sumner County Grand Jury for one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of rape of a child, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court dismissed one count of rape of a child upon motion of the State at the close of the State’s proof, and the trial court dismissed one count of aggravated sexual battery at the close of the defense’s proof. The jury found Defendant not guilty of aggravated sexual battery, and Defendant was convicted on one count each of the lesser-included offenses of sexual exploitation of a minor and child abuse. The trial court sentenced Defendant to four years’ incarceration for sexual exploitation of a minor and two years’ incarceration for child abuse, to be served concurrently. Following a hearing on Defendant’s “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or New Trial,” the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal on Defendant’s sexual exploitation of a minor conviction, concluding that the photographs of the victim did not depict “lascivious exhibition” as defined in State v. Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016). In this appeal as of right, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for child abuse and the trial court’s denial of probation. Following a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from an interpleader action filed by a party who owed funds that were claimed by two other parties. The trial court found that interpleader was appropriate pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 22.01 and allowed the disputed funds to be deposited with the court. The two remaining claimants to the funds filed crossmotions for summary judgment. The trial court found that one party was originally owed the funds but that this party owed a debt to the other claimant. As such, the trial court ruled that the funds would be paid to the party who was not originally owed the funds but who had the outstanding claim against the other claimant. We reverse in part, affirm as modified, and remand for further proceedings.

Victory Thayer (“Employee”) alleged that he sustained a compensable injury in 1997 in the course and scope of his employment with United Parcel Service (“Employer”). Employer and its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Insurer”), filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted their motion on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations barred Employee’s claim. Employee has appealed that decision. 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 judgment.

The Defendant, William H. Young, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his request for judicial diversion. The Defendant was convicted following a bench trial of criminally negligent homicide, and he was sentenced to eighteen months of supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by relying solely on the circumstances of the offense in its decision to deny judicial diversion to the exclusion of other supporting factors. According to the Defendant, the trial court’s decision to deny his request for judicial diversion was based on the offense that he was convicted of rather than the applicable factors. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal of a disciplinary proceeding against a Brentwood attorney arising out of the mismanagement of client funds held in trust. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility determined that the attorney had violated Rules 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds) and 8.4 (misconduct) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. The hearing panel recommended that the attorney be suspended for sixty days, to be followed by two years of probation under the supervision of a practice monitor, and that he complete fifteen hours of continuing legal education on law office management and trust accounting procedures. The chancery court modified the hearing panel’s decision by increasing the periods of suspension and probation and by imposing additional conditions of probation. We hold that the hearing panel’s decision was supported by material and substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The chancery court, therefore, erred in modifying the hearing panel’s decision. We reverse the judgment of the chancery court and affirm the hearing panel’s decision.

After police seized a vehicle allegedly used to transport drugs, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security initiated forfeiture proceedings against the vehicle’s owner. The owner filed a claim contesting the forfeiture proceedings, and the Department dismissed the claim as untimely. The owner petitioned for judicial review, and the trial court reversed the dismissal, reinstated the owner’s claim, and remanded for a hearing. We affirm the trial court’s decision.          

This is the second appeal arising from a divorce action. In this appeal, the wife contends the trial court erred by depriving her of the post-trial increase in her proportionate share of marital investment accounts. On remand, the trial court held that the wife was awarded a sum certain as of the date of divorce; thus, the subsequent increase in the value of the account was the husband’s property. We affirm.

Judy A. Allen (“Allen”) filed suit contesting the Last Will and Testament of Ida Lucille Land dated May 9, 2011 (“the Will”), which was admitted to probate in October of 2015. The case proceeded to trial before a jury, and after trial the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) entered judgment on the jury’s verdict finding that there was undue influence arising from a confidential relationship between Kenneth L. Hill (“the Executor”) and his wife, Pauline Hill, and Ida Lucille Land (“Deceased”); that the Executor and Pauline Hill unduly benefitted from the Will; and that the Executor and Pauline Hill failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was fair. The Executor appeals to this Court raising issues regarding whether the naming of a person as executor is a sufficient benefit to trigger the presumption of undue influence and whether the Trial Court erred in denying the Executor’s motion for directed verdict. We find and hold that there is material evidence supporting the jury’s verdict that the Executor and Pauline Hill exercised undue influence, that they received a benefit under the Will, and that the Executor and Pauline Hill failed to prove that the transaction was fair. We further find and hold that the Trial Court did not err in denying the motion for directed verdict. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court’s June 8, 2017 Final Decree.

This matter involves a will contest. The deceased died testate. His daughter, the proponent, is the executor. She submitted the deceased’s will to the trial court for probate. An order to probate was entered. The will expressly provides that the deceased’s son “is to take nothing” under the will. The son filed a complaint and a notice with the trial court contesting the will due to alleged undue influence. Proponent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that contestant did not have standing to file a contest. Contestant subsequently took a voluntary nonsuit; the trial court entered an order of nonsuit. Nine months after his initial filing, contestant filed a second will contest in the same court. The proponent filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the contestant’s voluntary dismissal of his first will contest bars the filing of his second complaint. The trial court agreed. It entered an order granting proponent’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. We affirm.

A Monroe County jury convicted the Petitioner, Sterling Davis, of possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of more than half an ounce of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty years, and this court affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. Sterling Jerome Davis, No. E2012-01398-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 6047558, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 14, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 13, 2014). In a petition for post-conviction relief, the Petitioner raised multiple issues not relevant to this appeal. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner raises the following issues: (1) the State failed to disclose facts that would be classified as Brady material; (2) the State willfully omitted facts which would have invalidated the search warrant in this case; and (3) the post-conviction court abused its discretion when it quashed a subpoena. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Defendant, Marlon Boyd, was convicted of first degree murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life without parole plus 30 years. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the count of the indictment alleging possession of a firearm by a convicted felon from the other charges; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to use Defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes; and (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this conservatorship action, three of the conservatee’s five adult children filed a petition for conservatorship over the conservatee in May 2015 and subsequently filed an emergency petition for conservatorship in June 2015. Following a hearing, the conservatorship court granted the emergency petition, naming one of the petitioners as conservator over the conservatee’s property and one of the petitioners as conservator over the conservatee’s person. The conservatee’s two non-petitioning children subsequently filed a motion in opposition to the conservatorship and requested that it be dissolved. The conservatee then filed an answer to the petition and motion to dismiss the conservatorship. Following various subsequent motions and a hearing conducted in September 2015, the conservatorship court entered an order in October 2015, inter alia, appointing East Tennessee Human Resources Agency (“ETHRA”) as an emergency interim conservator over the conservatee’s property but maintaining the originally named petitioner as conservator over the conservatee’s person. The conservatorship court subsequently memorialized these appointments as permanent in an order entered in December 2015. Upon motions for attorney’s fees filed by the petitioners’ counsel in January 2016, the conservatorship court found that the attorney’s fees requested were reasonable and granted them in an order entered in March 2016. On March 29, 2016, ETHRA filed the last of three successive inventory and property management plans. The conservatee died on May 2, 2016. Upon multiple motions requesting fees, the conservatorship court conducted a hearing and subsequently entered an order on June 21, 2016, inter alia, awarding reasonable fees and expenses to the attorney ad litem, the conservator of the person, and the petitioners’ counsel and former counsel. ETHRA filed a motion to enter final accounting on August 25, 2016, and concomitantly filed a motion requesting $9,112.50 in fees for the services of its representative agent. In September 2016, the petitioners’ counsel filed additional requests for attorney’s fees, and in October 2016, ETHRA’s counsel filed a motion for attorney’s fees. On October 6, 2016, ETHRA filed a motion to close the conservatorship. The petitioners subsequently filed an objection to the final accounting, and the two non-petitioning children filed separate objections to the petitioners’ supplemental motions for attorney’s fees filed subsequent to the conservatee’s death. Following two hearings, the conservatorship court entered an order on March 28, 2017, granting ETHRA’s motion to close the conservatorship and motions for its representative’s fees and attorney’s fees. The conservatorship court declined to consider the petitioners’ pending supplemental motions for attorney’s fees, referring those to the probate court in a subsequent order. The conservatorship court also referred any claims arising from the petitioners’ objections to the final accounting to the probate court. The petitioners have appealed, asserting improper transfer to probate court of their pending motions requesting attorney’s fees, a lack of itemization of the services provided by the ETHRA representative, and deficiencies in the final accounting. Having determined that the conservatorship court improperly transferred to the probate court the petitioners’ motions for attorney’s fees without making necessary findings of fact and improperly closed the conservatorship without making findings of fact concerning the petitioners’ objections to the final accounting, we vacate those portions of the judgment. We affirm the undisputed grant of attorney’s fees to ETHRA’s counsel. We remand for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the petitioners’ objections to the final accounting and concerning whether the attorney’s fees requested in the petitioners’ counsel’s pending attorney’s fee motions were incurred in relation to the conservatorship and, if so, whether reasonable attorney’s fees should be granted upon each of these motions. We also direct the conservatorship court to enter an order on remand directing ETHRA to present a detailed explanation of the basis for its representative’s claim for fees and expenses for the conservatorship court’s consideration based upon the factors provided in Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-112(a) (2015).

The Petitioner, Allen Booker, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he failed to receive due process at his trial or in the post-conviction evidentiary hearing and the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Trust beneficiary filed suit against co-trustees and various business entities in tort for the alleged wrongful withholding of distributions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on several grounds. The trial court dismissed trust beneficiary’s complaint relying on each of the grounds asserted by the defendants. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint based on the statute of limitations. We also grant reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred by defendants on appeal.