APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the mother and father on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistence of conditions, and willful abandonment by failure to visit, and upon the determination that termination of their parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Both parents appeal. Finding the evidence clear and convincing, we affirm.
 

The Defendant, Malcolm McKoy, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $500 and burglary. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent four-year and six-year terms, suspended to be served on unsupervised probation. These sentences were to run consecutively to another sentence unrelated to this appeal. After two subsequent probation violations based on new arrests, the Defendant was arrested for aggravated assault. A probation violation warrant was issued based upon this arrest, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Coffee County Chancery Court terminated the parental rights of the father on two grounds: 1) abandonment by willful failure to support pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and 2) abandonment by willful failure to visit the child pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); and upon the determination that termination of the father’s rights was in the best interest of the child. Father appeals. Finding the evidence clear and convincing, we affirm.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Kenneth L. Anderson, was convicted of one count of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years as a Range III, persistent offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that his right to confront one of the State’s witnesses was violated; (2) that his right to present witnesses in his defense was violated; (3) that one of the State’s witnesses, Penny Webber, was not competent to testify at trial; (4) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress a recorded phone conversation between himself and Ms. Webber and video recordings of the drug buy; (5) that he was denied his right of access to the courts; (6) that the jury venire did not represent a fair cross-section of the community; (7) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (8) that he was entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence; and (9) that his sentence was excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves allegations of medical battery and medical malpractice surrounding an exam performed on a patient while she was admitted to a hospital to give birth. The trial court dismissed any allegations for medical battery for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, finding that the patient’s complaint failed to include allegations that the exam was performed without the patient’s authorization. The trial court further dismissed any remaining malpractice claims for failure to comply with the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act notice requirements. Discerning no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Darrell Johnson, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of facilitation of attempted aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated burglary, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the length of his sentences. We affirm the convictions and sentences. On remand, however, we direct the trial court to correct the judgments to properly effectuate merger of the alternative counts of aggravated burglary.

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this consolidated appeal, the pro se appellant, Clarence D. Schreane, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s orders denying relief from his 2004 convictions of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Prior to this court’s consolidation of the case, the State filed motions to dismiss the appeals or, alternatively, to affirm the trial court’s denials of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. In light of the complexities of the issues raised in this appeal, we conclude that the State’s motions should be treated as responsive briefs. Following our review, we affirm the orders of the Hamilton County Criminal Court.

The petitioner, Johnie Jefferson, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He argues that he is entitled to coram nobis relief because the State suppressed exculpatory evidence that became known to him after the limitations period had expired. After review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

Petitioner, Ray Junior Turner, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine and one count of delivery of 300 grams or more of cocaine.  Each of the offenses is a Class A felony.  See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(j).  The trial court sentenced petitioner to sixty years for each conviction as a career offender to be served concurrently. He unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentences.  See State v. Kenneth Miller and Ray Junior Turner, No. M2008-02267-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 1644969, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 22, 2010).  Petitioner filed the current petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief.  On appeal, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel: (1) failed to properly investigate petitioner’s case and communicate with petitioner; (2) failed to file a motion to suppress wiretap evidence; and (3) failed to properly inspect all discoverable evidence introduced at trial.  Following our review of the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Andre L. McKinney, pled guilty to criminal simulation, a Class E felony, and received a negotiated sentence of two years. On the same day, he pled guilty to possession with intent to sell over 0.5 grams of cocaine and received a negotiated sentence of eight years, consecutive to the sentence of two years. Ultimately, the effective ten-year sentence was suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation. Following the filing of a probation violation warrant, the trial court conducted a hearing where Defendant and his probation officer testified. Defendant admitted that he had used marijuana multiple times while on probation, that he had been charged with and pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of marijuana while on probation, and that he knew he was supposed to report any new charges to his probation officer but failed to do so. The trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered the ten-year sentence to be served by incarceration. Defendant asserts in his appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Robert Wayne Garner, appeals his jury convictions for first degree murder in perpetration of a felony, a Class A felony, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-202(a)(1); aggravated arson, a Class A felony, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-302; and theft of property valued over ten thousand dollars, a Class C felony, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103. The appellant  received the mandatory minimum sentence for first degree felony murder of life in prison. The trial court additionally sentenced the defendant to serve twenty-five years for his conviction of aggravated arson and three years for his conviction of theft. The latter sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, but consecutively to the life sentence for felony murder, for a total effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years. On appeal Garner alleges insufficiency of the evidence; trial court error allowing hearsay testimony; trial court error not allowing impeachment of a witness with a prior conviction; and trial court error in allowing the hearsay of a phone call. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Lewis Young, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This case involves a claim filed against the Estate of Todd Clendenon. Elite Oncology Medical Group filed the claim seeking payment for medical treatment and services rendered to the decedent. Barbara Jean Clendenon, the decedent’s wife and his Personal Representative, moved the probate court to designate as “exempt funds” the monies paid to the decedent under his health insurance policy. The payments included those pertaining to the treatment and services the decedent received from Elite. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The court determined that payments made by the health insurance carrier that were deposited into the Estate’s bank account after the death of the decedent were exempt from the claims of creditors pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-1-110 (2010). Elite appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jerome Johnson, was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury for attempted second degree murder in count 1, aggravated assault in count 2, and solicitation to commit the offense of filing a false police report in count 3. Following a jury trial, Johnson was convicted in count 1 of the lesser included offense of reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor; in count 2 of the charged offense of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and in count 3 of the charged offense of solicitation to commit the offense of filing a false police report, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Johnson as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the aggravated assault conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ imprisonment for the reckless endangerment and solicitation to commit the offense of filing a false police report convictions. The court ordered that the sentences for the reckless endangerment and aggravated assault convictions be served concurrently and ordered that the sentence for the solicitation conviction be served consecutively to the other two sentences for an effective sentence of fifteen years plus eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Johnson argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In suit brought by condominium Homeowner’s Association, former owner of condominium unit which was ordered sold after being determined to constitute a nuisance, appeals the trial court’s order granting the Association’s application for attorneys’ fees. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the award, we affirm the judgment.
 

This is a suit by Terry Mullins seeking a declaration that the Defendants, the Lockes (who are brothers) and the Gillespies (who are husband and wife) – whose properties lie near to, and south of, the Plaintiff’s property – have no right to the use of a driveway across the Plaintiff’s property to Vera Drive in Rhea County. The Defendants claim that they have a prescriptive easement, measuring some 47 feet long and 50 feet wide, enabling them to access Vera Drive over the Plaintiff’s property. This matter was before us at an earlier time. Because the statement of the evidence presented to us on the first appeal was, in our words, “a one-sided argumentative presentation of the evidence favorable to the Plaintiff,” we remanded this case to the trial court, pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-3- 128 (2000). (Emphasis in original.) In our remand, we advised the parties that we were taking this action “so a proper statement of the evidence c[ould] be prepared.” (Footnote in original omitted.) Such a statement has now been filed. Upon consideration of the very thorough statement prepared by the trial court, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the court’s judgment finding and holding that the Defendants have a prescriptive easement over the property of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Donald Smith, contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he was not coherent at the hearing due to mental incapacities and that trial counsel was deficient for failing to request a mental evaluation. After considering the record and the relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The basic issues in this appeal involve the valuation of a decedent’s business at the time of his death. After the decedent died, the decedent’s mother was appointed administratrix of his estate. She filed this lawsuit against the decedent’s wife and the decedent’s wife’s brother, alleging that they had wrongfully disposed of virtually all of the decedent’s property after his death, including his business assets, therebyrendering a proper administration of the estate extremely difficult if not impossible. Following a four-day bench trial, the trial court concluded that the defendants had wrongfully taken possession of the decedent’s business assets and converted them to their own personal use. Relevant to this appeal, the court valued the decedent’s business at $75,000, and it held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to the estate for that amount. The defendants appeal, challenging only the amount of damages awarded by the trial court for the value of the business.  After a careful review of the record, we affirm

After some 16 years of marriage, Sharon Clayman Sitz (“Wife”) sued William Grant Sitz (“Husband”) for divorce. Following a bench trial, the court awarded Wife a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. The court adopted Wife’s proposed parenting plan, which made Wife the primary residential parent of their minor child and divided the marital property. The court further determined that Husband was voluntarily underemployed and imputed additional income to him in order to calculate his child support obligation. Husband appeals. We affirm with one modification.

Petitioner, Michael W. Smith, appeals the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for habeas corpus relief. On direct appeal from his convictions for assault and aggravated burglary in Shelby County, this Court determined that the trial court constructively amended the indictments during the jury charge causing reversible error. See State v. Michael Smith, No. W2011-01630-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 3702369 at *7-8 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 12, 2013). As a result, Petitioner’s convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial. Id. at 1. Because the habeas corpus petition in this case seeks a new trial, the judgment of this Court on direct appeal granting a new trial renders the instant appeal moot. Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.

Firstbank (“Plaintiff”) sued Landview Construction, LLC, Winston D. Cox (“Defendants”), and Beverly Linkous with regard to promissory notes secured by deeds of trust on three parcels of real property located in Knoxville, Tennessee. The parties attempted to enter into stipulations in lieu of presenting testimony at trial and informed the Trial Judge of these purported stipulations. After what passed as the trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment in the amount of $149,192.22 against defendants Landview Construction, LLC and Winston D. Cox jointly and severally. Defendants appeal to this Court alleging that the Trial Court misconstrued the stipulations and as a result erred in the amount of the judgment. We find and hold that the purported stipulations were insufficient to show that the parties reached any agreement as to the stipulations. We, therefore, vacate the Trial Court’s judgment and remand this case for a new trial.

Appellant, Perry Neal Barham, was indicted by the Chester County Grand Jury for one count of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The State subsequently dropped the rape charge. Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced by the trial court as a Range II offender to twenty years with a 100 percent release eligibility. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to allow the presentation of evidence of the victim’s prior sexual history under Rule 412 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence in the range. We have reviewed the record on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Christa Gail Pike, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from her conviction for attempted first degree premeditated murder of a fellow inmate.  On appeal, the Petitioner argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

On August 4, 2008, a Shelby County jury convicted Petitioner, Charles Williams, of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. State v. Charles Williams, No. W2008-02211-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL1930965, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 13, 2010), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 12, 2011). Petitioner was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of life and fifteen years. In 2011, Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court denied Petitioner relief. On appeal,
Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief.