APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Lorenzoe Wilson (“the Defendant”) appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and the imposition of his sentence of confinement, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of alternative sentencing and that he should have been reinstated to community corrections. After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In this appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s application of the general savings statute to the Defendant’s theft conviction, which occurred prior to the amendment of the theft statute, see T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103 (2014) (theft); 39-14-105 (2014) (amended 2017). Because no appeal as of right lies for the State pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 or Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-402, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this issue. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We nevertheless detect errors in the judgment and remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect a Class A misdemeanor consistent with the amended theft statute.

A mother of four children had her parental rights terminated based on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, abandonment by wanton disregard, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, severe child abuse, and persistence of conditions. Mother appealed the trial court’s judgment. We affirm the termination of her rights as to all grounds other than abandonment by failure to support, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and persistence of conditions.

The Defendant, Kentrell Lebron Lindsey, appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to serve in confinement his effective six-year sentence for his guilty-pleaded convictions of possession of dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III controlled substance, with the intent to sell or deliver; possession of oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance, with the intent to sell or deliver; and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court found that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1324(e), which required that the Defendant serve his three-year sentence for the firearm conviction in confinement and consecutively to his sentences for the drug convictions, rendered the Defendant statutorily ineligible for probation for his drug convictions. We conclude, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in finding the Defendant statutorily ineligible for probation for his drug convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of probation for the drug convictions and remand the case for the trial court to consider the Defendant’s suitability for probation on his three-year sentences for the drug convictions. The trial court’s judgments are otherwise affirmed.

The Petitioner, Edward Wilson, pled guilty to possession of heroin with the intent to sell, possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and possession of marijuana with the intent to sell and to five misdemeanors, which consisted mainly of traffic offenses, in exchange for an agreed-upon effective sentence of twenty years of imprisonment as a Range II, multiple offender. He filed a timely post-conviction petition asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that he was pleading guilty to multiple offenses and by failing to litigate a motion to suppress. The postconviction court denied relief, finding that the Petitioner had failed to establish either deficiency or prejudice. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a termination of parental rights case involving the parental rights of the father, William K. (“Father”), to his minor child, Amynn K. (“the Child”), who was four years of age at the time of trial. The Child was born in 2013 to Father and Amanda S. (“Mother”). In April 2013, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) granted temporary legal custody of the Child to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The Child was immediately placed in foster care, where he has remained since that date. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order on June 24, 2013, adjudicating the Child dependent and neglected due to Mother’s abandonment of the Child at the hospital following his birth. On August 23, 2016, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Child upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that Father had (1) abandoned the Child through conduct exhibiting wanton disregard for the welfare of the Child prior to Father’s incarceration, (2) failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plans, and (3) failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody of and financial responsibility for the Child. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Howard P. Fisher, was convicted of aggravated assault and criminal trespass, for which he received a ten-year sentence and a $50 fine, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated assault; (2) that the trial court erred in granting the State a continuance for sentencing; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Joseph Kantrell Norris, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court. In this appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

In this post-divorce case, Angela Michelle Newberry appeals the trial court’s modification of the permanent parenting plan. She challenges the trial court’s decision to change the designation of primary residential parent from her to her former spouse, Jeremy Mack Newberry. She also attacks the court’s decree reducing her co-parenting time. We hold that father failed to meet his burden of establishing a material change in circumstances affecting the children’s well-being, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-101(a)(2)(B) (2017). Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and reinstate the parenting plan as originally agreed to by the parties and ordered by the court in the final divorce judgment.

An Overton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Kevin Clark, of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment, one count of aggravated arson, and one count of abuse of a corpse. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of two consecutive life sentences. This court affirmed the trial court’s judgments on appeal. State v. Kevin Clark, No. M2912- 01744-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 6145812 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 21, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 8, 2014). The Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief in which he alleged, as relevant on appeal, that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his petition for post-conviction relief because: (1) he was deprived of his right to an impartial jury because of an improper communication between a juror and a witness; and (2) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. He further contended that the post-conviction court erred when it: (1) did not limit the scope of cross-examination of the Petitioner’s witness to questions relevant to the post-conviction petition; and (2) did not consider all the issues presented in his petition for postconviction relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Bobby Chism, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The mother and step-father of a child appeal the denial of their Petition to Terminate the Parental Rights of the father of the child on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following the denial of her application for pretrial diversion, the defendant, Lisa Edwards, petitioned the Knox County Criminal Court for a writ of certiorari. The trial court denied the petition for writ of certiorari but granted the defendant’s request for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm the denial of pretrial diversion in this case.

Father’s rights to his son were terminated based upon his stipulation that the Department of Children’s Services could prove that grounds to terminate existed and upon the Court’s conclusion that termination was in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. Upon our review, we conclude that Father’s stipulation that the evidence satisfied the statutory grounds for termination was a nullity. We also conclude that the trial court’s order does not contain adequate factual findings with respect to the grounds for termination to provide for a meaningful review. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the court and remand the case.

A borrower filed a pro se petition against a mortgage company and law firm seeking to enjoin a foreclosure sale. The trial court issued the injunction but, upon motion of the mortgage company and law firm, set aside the order granting injunctive relief after finding the order void. The trial court also found that the borrower’s petition failed to state a claim and dismissed the action. We vacate in part and affirm in part.    

In this post-divorce proceeding, Father appeals the reduction of his parenting time. Because he has failed to include a transcript or statement of the evidence in accordance with Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we presume that the evidentiary record supports the trial Court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

In this divorce action presenting issues concerning the classification and distribution of the parties’ assets, the trial court determined that an oil and gas investment purchased during the marriage was the wife’s separate property, as was her engagement ring. The trial court fashioned an equitable distribution of the parties’ marital property and debts and denied the wife’s claim for alimony. In doing so, the trial court excluded any consideration of assets formerly owned by the parties that were held by a trust at the time of trial. The husband has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, the Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the rights of R.T. with respect to his child, D.T.1 At trial, DCS alleged a single ground for termination: persistence of conditions. The court found clear and convincing evidence. By the same quantum of proof, the court also found that termination is in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm.

When a divorce complaint is filed and served, a statutory injunction goes into effect prohibiting both parties from changing the beneficiary on any life insurance policy that names either party as the beneficiary without the consent of the other party or a court order. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-106(d)(2) (2010). Jessica Olson sued her husband, Bryan Olson, for divorce. A week later, Ms. Olson, while seriously ill, changed the beneficiary on her life insurance policy from her husband to her mother. Ms. Olson died a few days later. Her mother, Rose Coleman, collected the life insurance benefits. Ms. Coleman sued Mr. Olson for grandparent visitation under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306 (2010). Mr. Olson responded that he did not oppose visitation, and therefore, Ms. Coleman was not entitled to court-ordered visitation. In addition, Mr. Olson countersued to recover the life insurance benefits. The trial court awarded the insurance benefits to the Olsons’ child, finding that Ms. Olson had intended to remove Mr. Olson and substitute their child as the insurance beneficiary. The trial court ordered Ms. Coleman to pay the remaining life insurance funds into the court registry, to account for her expenditures, and to pay a judgment for expenditures that did not benefit the child. The trial court also granted Ms. Coleman’s petition for grandparent visitation. The Court of Appeals reversed, awarding the life insurance benefits to Mr. Olson based on Ms. Olson’s violation of the statutory injunction and its consideration of Mr. Olson’s financial needs. In addition, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s award of visitation to Ms. Coleman. We hold that (1) Ms. Olson violated the statutory injunction under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-106(d)(2) when she removed Mr. Olson as her life insurance beneficiary; (2) the Olsons’ divorce action abated when Ms. Olson died and the statutory injunction became ineffective; (3) a trial court, after the abatement of a divorce action, may remedy a violation of the statutory injunction after considering the equities of the parties; (4) the trial court erred by awarding the life insurance benefits to the Olsons’ child based on the pleadings and the evidence; (5) the Court of Appeals erred by awarding the life insurance benefits to Mr. Olson without sufficient evidence of the equities of the parties; (6) the trial court, on remand, may remedy the violation of the statutory injunction by awarding all or a portion of the life insurance benefits to either or both parties after hearing additional evidence and considering the equities of the parties; and (7) Ms. Coleman was not entitled to court-ordered grandparent visitation absent Mr. Olson’s opposition to visitation. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals; we reverse and vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. 

The pro se Petitioner, Matthew Dixon, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and post-conviction DNA analysis. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

Kenneth Raymer (“Employee”) sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder on July 8, 2011, and a compensable injury to his neck on December 18, 2012. He filed separate civil actions seeking permanent disability benefits for his injuries. The actions were consolidated for trial. The trial court awarded 30% permanent partial disability for the shoulder injury and 50% permanent partial disability for the neck injury and commuted both awards to lump sums. Maintenance Insights, LLC and Logistics Insight Corporation (collectively “Employer”) have appealed, contending the disability awards are excessive and that Employee did not demonstrate that the awards should have been commuted. 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 of the trial court.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of A.D.G. to her children, K.O. and K.G. Because the court did not “make[] specific findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(k) (2017), we remand the case to the trial court for the entry of an appropriate order.

Petitioner, Corey Mitchell, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) he was denied a full and fair hearing in the post-conviction proceedings, and (2) his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made due to the ineffective assistance of counsel rendered by his trial counsel. After review of the arguments of the parties and the entire record, we conclude that Petitioner is entitled to relief on his first issue. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for a new hearing. Furthermore, the interests of justice require that under the circumstances of this case, and to insure the public perception of a fair and impartial hearing, the post-conviction proceedings must be heard by a different judge than the one who has previously heard the proceedings. In light of our conclusion and disposition of the first issue, issue two is pretermitted at this time.

This appeal involves the issue of past child sexual abuse by a parent. After the original trial de novo, the father was found guilty of severe child abuse and was enjoined from contact with the child and another daughter. A prior appeal resulted in an affirmance of the trial court’s finding. In re Emmalee O., 464 S.W.3d 311 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). After permission to appeal was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, the father filed a motion to vacate or modify the 2014 ruling of the trial court. After the trial court denied the relief requested, the father again appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce restrictive covenants. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking an injunction to prevent their neighbors from operating a commercial horse facility. After a hearing, the court permanently enjoined Defendants from using or allowing their property to be used for a commercial horse operation and from constructing any additional buildings before they built a residence on the property. The trial court also ruled that Defendants did not have to remove or relocate the already-constructed “run-in shed” at this time, but that once a residence is built, the shed must be removed or moved to the rear of the residence. Defendants appeal. Upon our review, we reverse the judgment enjoining Defendants from conducting a commercial horse operation; in all other respects we affirm the judgment of the trial court.