APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following his indictment for first degree murder, a Benton County jury convicted the Defendant, George E. Burns, III, of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of 17 years. The trial court subsequently granted the Defendant’s motion for new trial. The Defendant later entered a best-interest plea to voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, where the agreed sentence would be eight-andone-half years at 60 percent, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Tony R. Hearon ("Employee') allegedly developed an occupational disease during the
course and scope of his employment with the State of Tennessee ("Employer"). Employee
gave notice of his injury to Employer but his claim was denied. The denial letter advised
Employee that he must file a petition for benefit determination within ninety days or risk
dismissal of his claim. Employee filed his petition several months after the expiration of
the ninety-day period. Upon receiving a dispute certification notice dismissing his claim,
Employee filed a workers' compensation complaint in the Claims Commission, which is
the agency responsible for handling disputed claims of state workers. Employer moved for
summary judgment, asserting Employee failed to meet the ninety-day statutory deadline.
The Commissioner granted summary judgment concluding that Employee failed to timely
file his petition for benefit determination and therefore failed to exhaust the benefit review
process as required by statute. Employee appealed. The appeal was referred to the Special
Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel ("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 Commissioner.

In a previous appeal, this Court affirmed the probate court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants on two separate grounds – res judicata and the statute of limitations.  On remand, the appellant filed a Rule 60 motion seeking to set aside the same order granting summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that a recent order from a circuit court necessitated that the probate court’s summary judgment order be “voided and set aside.”  The probate court denied the motion.  The appellant appeals.  We affirm and remand.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee from the chancery court’s denial of a motion to recuse.
A new chancellor, during the course of a judicial election and shortly after the election was
held, made extremely critical comments regarding the personal and professional character
of his opponent, the incumbent chancellor. The challenger won the election, and the former
chancellor, who has returned to practice, is now representing a party before the new
chancellor. The former chancellor moved for the new chancellor’s recusal in cases in
which the former chancellor is appearing as counsel as well as recusal from cases involving
the law firm which the former chancellor joined after losing the judicial election. The new
chancellor denied the motion. On appeal, we conclude that, even in the absence of actual
bias, based upon concern about the appearance of bias toward the former chancellor,
recusal is warranted. This concern does not extend to the law firm the former chancellor
has joined. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of recusal insofar as it concerns the former
chancellor but affirm the denial of recusal insofar as it concerns the law firm.

The Petitioner, Joe G. Manley, appeals from the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his guilty-pleaded convictions for
aggravated domestic assault, domestic assault, and false imprisonment. The Petitioner
contends that the post-conviction court erred by finding that he received effective
assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective based upon trial
counsel’s failing to (1) communicate and maintain contact with the Petitioner; (2)
thoroughly investigate the case and speak with the victims prior to entry of the Petitioner’s
plea; (3) request a remand to general sessions court for a preliminary hearing; and (4)
explain that Corrections Management Corporation would supervise the Petitioner’s release.
Following our review, we affirm the judgment of post-conviction court denying relief.

The Petitioner-Appellant, Aaron Dodson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions of first-degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. The Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred in limiting proof at the post-conviction hearing to only alleged errors of trial counsel.1 After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendants appeal from the denial of their effort to invalidate a 2017 judgment on the basis that the trial judge harbored animosity against them at the time the judgment was rendered. Because these allegations were adjudicated in an earlier Rule 60.02 action, we conclude that res judicata bars the instant effort for relief from the judgment.

In February of 2021, Defendant, Clinton D. Braden, pleaded guilty to burglary and
identity theft. In exchange, he received a total effective sentence of 16 years suspended
to community corrections. On May 4, 2022, Defendant admitted he again violated the
terms of his community corrections program and offered no proof for the trial court to
make findings of what consequences to apply. Defendant now appeals, and we affirm,
the trial court’s judgment to impose his original sentence to serve in full.

Petitioner, Alexander Carino, appeals from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus.  He alleges that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily denying his petition without advising him of his right to counsel or  appointing counsel and that his judgments for second-degree murder are void because the affidavits of complaint were not “properly authenticated” because they did not contain a court seal.  Petitioner further alleges for the first time on appeal that the affidavits of complaint contain an insufficient factual basis to support a finding of probable cause.  Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. 

Defendant, Isiah J. Primm, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first degree felony murder; two counts of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony; and one count of conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; and sentenced to an effective life plus forty years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the jury should have been instructed on self-defense, facilitation, and attempt as lesser-included offenses of first degree murder; (3) the jury should have been instructed on the State’s duty to gather and preserve evidence; (4) the State committed a Brady violation by waiting until the morning of trial to provide Defendant with a copy of Mr. Tidwell’s cell phone report; (5) the State knew or should have known that one of the victims introduced false testimony; (6) the trial court should have excluded evidence of drugs found in the apartment where Defendant was staying; (7) Defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right was violated because the jury venire contained no African American jurors; and (8) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court; however, because the trial court did not sign three of the judgments, we remand the case for entry of amended judgments.

Petitioner, Charles Claybrooks,1 appeals the dismissal of his 2021 petition seeking postconviction
relief from his 2010 convictions for one count aggravated robbery and two
counts of aggravated assault. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court concluded
that Petitioner “failed to demonstrate entitlement to the tolling of the statute of limitations”
and dismissed the Petition. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of persistent conditions
and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody of the child.
Father also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights was in
the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying
Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because there is no evidence of bias that would require
recusal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.

This appeal involves a personal injury case where the defendant died during the pendency
of the litigation. Subsequent to the filing of a suggestion of death by the defendant’s
counsel, the plaintiff failed to timely file a motion for substitution within the time provided
in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and, as a result, the defendant’s counsel filed a
motion to dismiss. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for substitution and
simultaneously moved the trial court to enlarge the time for filing the motion. The trial
court denied the plaintiff’s motions and dismissed the case. Upon our review of the record,
we reverse.

This appeal concerns premises liability. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a pedestrian bridge on the defendants’ property. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. We affirm.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Cadarius Head, of first degree
premeditated murder and attempted first degree murder, and the trial court imposed an
effective life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient
to support his convictions. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the State’s primary
witness was not credible and that his convictions were otherwise based on circumstantial
evidence. He further contends that the State failed to convincingly prove the element of
premeditation as to his first degree murder conviction. Finally, he argues that the evidence
supporting his conviction for attempted first degree murder was insufficient because the
victim did not testify at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court.

A woman filed a complaint alleging she was assaulted at a retail store.  Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the woman failed to prove her assault claim, and the woman appealed.  Due to the deficiencies in the woman’s appellate brief, this Court is unable to reach the substantive issues she raises, and we dismiss the appeal.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Brendan Nathan Morgan, was convicted in the
Decatur County Circuit Court of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to ten years at
100 percent in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting testimony that a police investigator saw search history
for pornographic material on the Defendant’s cell phone because the evidence violated the
best evidence rule and the rule against hearsay. Based on our review, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

This appeals centers upon a challenge to a chancery court’s findings of fact that proved
determinative as to multiple legal issues arising in litigation related to unpaid repair costs
for rendering a private plane airworthy. The chancery court made the factual determination
that the plane owner did not agree to pay for the repairs performed by a mechanic. In
reaching this conclusion, the chancery court resolved the case based upon documentary
evidence in the form of deposition transcripts and exhibits rather than live witness
testimony. Given the documentary nature of the trial court proceedings, we conducted a
de novo review of the evidence presented without affording deference to the trial court’s
factual findings. We find the trial court erred in its factual finding that the owner did not
agree to pay for the repairs. Accordingly, we reverse the chancery court’s legal conclusions
for which the trial court’s contrary factual determinations had been determinative. We
conclude that the plane owner breached his contract with the mechanic and is responsible
for storage costs for the plane pursuant to the possessory lien thereupon. We remand for
further proceedings including a determination of the applicability of prejudgment interest
to the repair costs.

This appeal concerns an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §
8-44-101, et seq. Pauline Madron (“Plaintiff”) sued the City of Morristown, Mayor Gary
Chesney, as well as Councilmembers Al A’Hearn, Chris Bivens, Robert Garrett, Tommy
Pedigo, Kay Senter, and Ken Smith (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for
Hamblen County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiff alleged that the city’s public notice of a
July 12, 2019 special meeting to exceed the certified tax rate was inadequate. Plaintiff and
Defendants filed crossing motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s Open Meetings Act
claim. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the city’s notice that it intended to exceed the certified
tax rate was mere jargon that did not reasonably inform the public of the purpose of the
special meeting or the action to be taken. In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s
Open Meetings Act claim is moot as it arises out of a property tax rate that was passed in
fiscal year 2019-2020, which lapsed before this matter was heard. Alternatively,
Defendants contend that, while most people may not understand the intricacies of city
finances, most people do understand what “exceed” and “tax rate” mean. While Plaintiff’s
claim is moot, it warrants resolution nevertheless. We hold that the city’s public notice of
the July 12, 2019 special meeting was adequate. We affirm.

In this consolidated appeal, the Petitioner, Robert Garner, appeals from the Giles County Circuit Courts’ summary denial of his petition for relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021 (Fingerprint Act) and his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We affirm the judgments of the post-conviction and coram nobis courts.

This appeal involves a breach of contract action filed against the agent of an undisclosed principal. The trial court entered an order granting judgment against the agent. The agent appeals. We affirm.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Tennessee, filed by N.R.H. (“Petitioner”), seeking to recuse the trial court judge.
Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Petitioner, and finding it fatally
deficient, we dismiss the appeal.

After pleading guilty to two counts of violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender law and reckless endangerment, Defendant was sentenced to a total of eight years and six months on supervised probation.  Several probation violation warrants, a partial revocation, and additional convictions followed, eventually culminating in a hearing on the revocation of Defendant’s probation.  Defendant admitted the violations.  The trial court ultimately determined that Defendant’s multiple probation violations warranted the complete revocation of probation.  After a review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The mother of Aubree D. appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found that the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) established several grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights—including severe child abuse—and that termination of her rights was in Aubree’s best interest. On appeal, the mother contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove any ground for termination or that termination of her parental rights is in Aubree’s best interest. In a dependency and neglect proceeding, the Circuit Court for Overton County found that the mother subjected Aubree to severe child abuse, and this court affirmed that finding in In re Aubree D., No. M2021-01229-COA-R3-JV, 2022 WL 4488507 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2022). Thus, the finding of severe child abuse is res judicata. We have also determined that DCS proved other grounds for termination and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in Aubree’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.