APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Garen Wright, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his previously ordered probationary sentence of twenty years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by not considering alternatives to placing Defendant in custody for the full term. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A wife sought a divorce after a long-term marriage. The trial court granted the wife a default judgment for divorce as a sanction for the husband’s discovery abuses. After a trial, the court also valued and divided the marital estate and awarded the wife alimony in futuro. On appeal, the husband challenges the court’s decisions on multiple grounds. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Defendant, William Rimmel, III, was indicted by the Marion County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, one count of false imprisonment, one count of vandalism over $2,500, and one count of burglary of an automobile. The charge of false imprisonment was dismissed prior to trial. A jury found Defendant guilty of attempted aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, attempted reckless endangerment, vandalism under $1,000, and attempted burglary of an automobile. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective sentence of two years on probation following service of 11 months and 29 days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and in ordering consecutive sentencing, that his convictions should be vacated due to the State’s failure to preserve evidence, and that the trial court gave confusing jury instructions. Based on the record, the briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a judgment in Count 4 and amended judgment in Count 3, reflecting that those counts were dismissed, and for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 5 and 6.

This case involves a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the plaintiff, then a member of the Clarksville City Council, was entitled to a declaration of rights concerning alleged communications between the Clarksville City Attorney and the local District Attorney General potentially pertaining to plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that the plaintiff was seeking an impermissible advisory opinion because there was no justiciable controversy. Having reviewed the record, we affirm.

This is an appeal regarding the final decree of divorce for this couple. The husband’s inlaws
are included as intervening petitioners. The trial court granted the wife a divorce on
the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, $1250 per month alimony in futuro, and
payment of her attorney fees as alimony in solido.1 Further, the court awarded a judgment
to the intervening petitioners of $297,670, with a lien in their favor upon all the real
property to secure payment of the indebtedness. The husband appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Paul Tracy Bailes, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s
probation revocation of the fourteen-year split-confinement sentence he received for his
guilty-pleaded convictions for forgery, two counts of theft of property, and two counts of
attempted possession of methamphetamine for resale. On appeal, the Defendant contends
that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation, rather than permitting
him to participate in the mental health court program. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.

At the heart of this appeal is a narrow procedural question: whether the 2021 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203 permits the Defendant, Byron Black, to move for a hearing on whether he has an intellectual disability and is therefore ineligible for the death penalty. The trial court dismissed the motion after determining that the Defendant was procedurally barred from bringing the issue. On appeal, we hold that because the issue of the Defendant’s intellectual disability has been previously adjudicated, he may not file a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(g)(1). We also hold that the General Assembly’s decision not to entitle the Defendant to a second hearing does not subject him to cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it deny him due process of law or the equal protection of the law. Accordingly, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A pro se petitioner seeks accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying a motion for
recusal. Because the filing does not comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we
dismiss the appeal.

An injured truck driver brought suit against his alleged employer seeking to recover worker’s compensation benefits. The alleged employer did not appear at trial, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Eight months later, the alleged employer moved the trial court to set aside the judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, on the grounds that it did not receive notice of the trial date. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the alleged employer failed to notify the court and the plaintiff of its change of address and that plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if the court set aside the judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Randy O. Reynolds, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of aggravated vehicular homicide (Count 1), vehicular homicide (Count 2), reckless homicide (Count 3), vehicular assault by driving under the influence (Count 4), simple possession of a schedule II controlled substance (Count 5), leaving the scene of an accident (Count 6), evading arrest (Count 7), and driving on a revoked license (Count 8). On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present expert testimony regarding the effects of intoxication; and (3) the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his all of his felony convictions, and his misdemeanor evading arrest conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Oberton Curry, Jr., of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving while unlicensed, violation of the registration law, and disobeying a stop sign.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for felony possession of a weapon and that an item of evidence was erroneously admitted.  He further contends that the jury instructions were inaccurate and incomplete.  After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal involves the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion. In the original action,
the trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Mount Carmel, Tennessee (“the
City”), finding that it had negated an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim against it.
In the summary judgment pleadings, the City presented expert evidence concluding that
the retaining wall in question was failing due to lateral earth pressure and not a problem
with the foundation. In that report, the expert stated that the backfill of the retaining wall
was red clay but that regardless of whether the backfill consisted of red clay or crushed
stone, the wall would fail. The plaintiff presented no evidence to rebut this opinion. The
plaintiff filed a Rule 60.02 motion seeking to be relieved of the grant of summary judgment
after discovering that the backfill of the wall was crushed stone and not red clay as stated
in the expert’s report.1 The trial court denied the Rule 60.02 motion upon its determination
that even with a backfill of crushed stone, summary judgment still would have been
granted. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Floyd Hall, III, appeals the Haywood County Circuit Court’s denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder. On
appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by denying his claim that
he received the ineffective assistance of counsel by trial counsel’s failure to file a motion
to suppress a statement the Petitioner gave to the police. We affirm the post-conviction
court’s judgment.

After a fire at a rental home, suit was brought against the tenant.  During discovery, the tenant sought admissions related to the landlords’ insurance coverage and as to whether the suit was actually a subrogation action by the insurer brought in the names of the insured.  As a result of resistance to disclosure, the tenant moved to compel.  The trial court granted the motion.  Following admissions indicating that this suit is a subrogation action by the insurer brought in the names of the insured, the tenant moved for summary judgment asserting that under the Sutton Rule she is an implied co-insured under the landlords’ insurance policy.  Opposition to summary judgment was advanced based upon the purported inapplicability of the Sutton Rule and the purported applicability of the collateral source rule.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the tenant.  This appeal followed.  We affirm the trial court’s grant of the motion to compel and summary judgment in favor of the tenant.

An arbitrator awarded a subcontractor damages against a general contractor. In chancery court, the general contractor moved to vacate the award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The chancery court denied the motion to vacate and, at the request of the subcontractor, confirmed the arbitration award. We affirm.

I respectfully disagree with the majority's holding that the doctrine of prior suit pending is inapplicable here. The majority's discussion of prior suit pending is contained in footnote one of its opinion. Therein, the majority notes that the Rogers Group commenced an action (the "Cheatham County case") in Cheatham County against CKF Excavating and TBI. However, the majority omits the fact that TBI filed a cross-claim against CKF in the Cheatham County case. For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that TBI's cross-claim triggered the doctrine of prior suit pending and vested jurisdiction in the Cheatham County court. As such, the Davidson County court did not have authority to conduct a review of the arbitrator's decision.

The Appellant, Antonio Tywan James, appeals as of right from his convictions of firstdegree
premeditated murder and tampering with evidence, for which he received an
effective sentence of life imprisonment. The Appellant argues the trial court erred in
denying funds to obtain expert services and in excluding the Appellant’s conversation with
his aunt, Annie Merriweather, as inadmissible hearsay. Based upon the combination of
these two alleged trial errors, the Appellant contends reversal under the cumulative error
doctrine is required. The Appellant additionally argues the trial court erred in not requiring
the State to elect which item it was using in its prosecution of tampering with evidence.
Upon our review, we affirm.

Citizens of Tennessee may apply to the Tennessee Department of Revenue (the “Department”) for license plates featuring unique, personalized messages. Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-4-210(d)(2) provides that “[t]he commissioner shall refuse to issue any combination of letters, numbers or positions that may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that are misleading.” After her personalized plate featuring the message “69PWNDU” was revoked by the Department, Leah Gilliam (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against David Gerregano (the “Commissioner”), commissioner of the Department, as well as the then-Attorney General and Reporter. Plaintiff alleged various constitutional violations including violations of her First Amendment right to Free Speech. The Department and the State of Tennessee (together, the “State”) responded, asserting, inter alia, that the First Amendment does not apply to personalized plate configurations because they are government speech. The lower court, a special three judge panel sitting in Davidson County, agreed with the State. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse, holding that the personalized alphanumeric configurations on vanity license plates are private, not government, speech. We affirm, however, the panel’s decision not to assess discovery sanctions against the State. Plaintiff’s other constitutional claims are pretermitted and must be evaluated on remand because the panel did not consider any issues other than government speech. This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the
grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to support, (2) persistence of conditions, and (3)
failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial
responsibility of the children. She further challenges the trial court’s finding by clear and
convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the
children. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

The Defendant, Quincy D. Moutry, appeals the dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence for his possession of a firearm with
the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony conviction.
Specifically, the Defendant argues that the trial court’s entry of corrected judgment forms
increasing the mandatory minimum service term on his sentence constituted an ex parte
sentencing in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a)(3). After review,
we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for entry of a corrected
judgment form.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Ovitta Vaughn, of driving with a blood
alcohol concentration of .08 percent or more (DUI per se) and driving under the influence
of an intoxicant (DUI) for which she received a sentence of 11 months and 29 days,
suspended to supervised probation after serving 10 days in confinement. On appeal, the
defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her
convictions. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in failing to allow the
introduction of Deputy Goodman’s prior adjudication for untruthfulness, in failing to issue
a curative instruction following the prosecution’s inappropriate closing argument, in failing
to allow the inclusion of a special jury instruction on the operability of the defendant’s
vehicle, and in failing to require the State to make an election as to whether the defendant
was driving her vehicle or merely had physical control. After reviewing the record and
considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we
remand the case for a corrected judgment form in count two.

Defendant, William Vess Binkley, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial after the State introduced evidence during trial that had not been disclosed to Defendant during discovery; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the victim's forensic interview as substantive evidence; (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing arguments; and (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff sued several defendants over social media posts and the unauthorized use of his and his child’s name, image, and likeness. Plaintiff requested both damages and injunctive relief. In response, defendants petitioned to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Plaintiff then filed notice of a voluntary nonsuit, which defendants opposed. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. Because we conclude that nothing in Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41 precludes the voluntary dismissal, we affirm.

A Rutherford County jury found Defendant, Sebakire Crode, guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with Defendant to serve 150 days in jail and the balance on probation. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of driving under the influence and that he received an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Hopie Conley, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of
reckless aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment, with an agreed
sentence of six years, split confinement, with Defendant serving 180 days incarcerated and
the remainder of her sentence on supervised probation. Following a restitution hearing,
the trial court ordered Defendant pay $83,366.68 in total restitution through monthly
payments of $500. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in determining the
restitution amount because the total amount awarded could not be satisfied prior to the end
of her sentence, Defendant lacked the financial ability to pay the ordered monthly
restitution amount, and the State failed to prove the victim’s pecuniary loss. The State
concedes that the trial court erred in ordering a monthly restitution payment schedule that
would not satisfy the total restitution award prior to the end of Defendant’s sentence.
However, it contends the trial court properly determined the monthly restitution amount
and submits that the matter does not need to be remanded. After reviewing the record, the
briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and considering the applicable law, we reverse the
judgments of the trial court in part and remand for a new restitution hearing consistent with
this opinion.