APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Montez Davis, was convicted of second degree murder, reckless endangerment, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a Hamilton County jury. State v. Montez Davis, No. E2011-02066-CCA-R3CD, 2012 WL 6213520, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 10, 2013). The post-conviction court denied several of Petitioner’s claims but ultimately granted post-conviction relief and vacated Petitioner’s second degree murder conviction. The State appealed and Petitioner filed a cross-appeal. After a thorough review, we reverse the post-conviction court’s grant of post-conviction relief and reinstate Petitioner’s second degree murder conviction.

The pro se Petitioner, Raymond-Bernard Bailey, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the error coram court erred in dismissing his petition without a hearing because he has newly discovered evidence to show his innocence of the crimes. Based on our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

The Petitioner, Breyon Bates, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Andre Anthony, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his pro se Motion to Correct Judgment Order. After review, we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Petitioner, Joseph Thomas, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the coram nobis court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to error coram nobis relief from his Alford guilty pleas. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

This appeal involves the mortgagors’ petition to set aside the non-judicial foreclosure of a piece of real property, alleging that the mortgagors and owner of the property were not given proper notice of the non-judicial foreclosure sale. The mortgagee and the beneficiary of the deed of trust concerning the property at issue is the City of Chattanooga. The property was sold to Vince Trotter in a foreclosure auction. In a court order, which was certified as final pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Trotter, determining that Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 prevented the foreclosure sale from being considered void or voidable due to lack of notice and that the mortgagors had a constitutionally adequate remedy of monetary damages. Despite the mortgagors arguing that Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 is unconstitutional as applied to governmental entities, the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office was not notified of the constitutional challenge to the statute, as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.04, Tenn. R. App. P. 32, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107(b). Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Trotter and remand to the trial court to provide the required notice to the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.

In 2020, a Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Mimms, of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first degree premeditated murder.  The trial court imposed concurrent fifteen-year sentences in confinement.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.  After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the proof was less than clear and convincing that termination was in her child’s best interest. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence of three grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

On May 24, 2021, the Defendant, Milton Keith Perkins, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence. He alleged that his negotiated Tennessee sentence was illegal because the judgment indicated it should be served “consecutively to any present sentence including Texas parole,” but his Texas sentence was adjudicated after the Tennessee conviction. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Deanna Lynn Akers (“Wife”) and Neil E. Powers (“Husband”) were divorced by the Circuit Court for Bradley County (the “trial court”) in 2016. Wife was awarded $1,100.00 per month in alimony in futuro. Following a slew of post-trial motions and proceedings, Husband filed a petition to terminate Wife’s alimony on August 6, 2019. A hearing was held after which the trial court terminated Wife’s alimony and entered a judgment against Wife for the overpaid amount. Because the trial court erred in terminating Wife’s alimony altogether, the trial court’s decision is vacated and remanded for reinstatement of Wife’s in futuro support. Because Husband established, however, a substantial and material change in his earning ability, a modification of the amount of alimony is appropriate and should be determined by the trial court on remand.

In this divorce, one of the former spouses appeals the court’s division of certain marital debt.  She claims that the division was inconsistent with the court’s final judgment and that there was no basis to revisit its previous decision absent a request for relief under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02.  Because we conclude that the previous decision addressing debts was not a final judgment, we affirm the court’s division of marital debt.     

Defendant, Ronnie Lee Clayborn, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of rape of a child and incest, for which he received a sentence of twenty-seven years’ incarceration.  On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court committed plain error by the admission of prior uncharged sex crimes to bolster the victim’s testimony; (3) rebuttal testimony from the lead detective infringed upon Defendant’s right to remain silent; (4) the trial court erred when it excluded testimony from Defendant’s father about text messages sent from Defendant to the victim’s mother on the night of the offense; (5) the prosecutor engaged in improper prosecutorial argument; (6) the trial court committed plain error by allowing the use of a facility dog during the testimony of two minor witnesses; (7) he is entitled to plain error relief based on the prosecutors’ and the lead detective’s repeated use of the term “victim” to refer to the complaining witness; and (8) cumulative error necessitates a new trial.  Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of conviction.

The Petitioner, Andre Anthony, appeals the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

In this premises liability case, the plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by determining that the divot in the brick step that caused her to trip and fall amounted to a minor aberration and that, as a result, the defendants did not owe her a duty of care.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Unwed parents filed competing petitions to modify a permanent parenting plan.  The parents agreed that there had been a material change in circumstances warranting a modification.  But they disagreed over the parenting schedule and who should be the primary residential parent.  After a hearing, the trial court changed the primary residential parent and, based on proof of domestic abuse, limited the mother’s parenting time.  We conclude that neither decision was an abuse of discretion.  So we affirm.

A Sumner County jury convicted the Defendant, Jamie L. Tice, of two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure and three counts of aggravated statutory rape, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-four years with release eligibility after service of thirty percent of the sentence in confinement.  On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her two convictions for statutory rape by an authority figure; (2) the State committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose payments made to a testifying witness and her husband; (3) the trial court erred in failing to provide a modified unanimity instruction in Count 4, and the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for aggravated statutory rape in that count; (4) the trial court committed plain error in improperly admitting hearsay statements of the Defendant’s husband, as well as the argument thereof, which violated the Defendant’s right to due process and confrontation; (5) the trial court erroneously deprived her of the right of cross-examination on certain topics; (6) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (7) cumulative error deprived her of a fair trial.  After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.  

The Defendant, Jamee White-McCray, was convicted in the Sullivan County Criminal Court of facilitation of attempted first degree premeditated murder and facilitation of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and received an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not imposing a sentence of split confinement. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this dispute between Appellant, homeowner, and Appellee, homeowners’ association, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant’s property is bound by a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Appellant painted his home’s trim without first seeking approval from the homeowners’ association in violation of the declaration. Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to show a dispute of material fact regarding his affirmative defenses. As such, the trial court did not err in granting the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, nor in awarding attorney’s fees to Appellee under the declaration. Affirmed and remanded.

Following a traffic stop of his vehicle that yielded five packages of methamphetamine hidden inside the spare tire, the Defendant, Henry Dwayne Autrey, was indicted by the Putnam County Grand Jury for possession of more than 300 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to sell and with the intent to deliver. He filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the search of the spare tire was unconstitutional because it was conducted after the initial search of the vehicle had been completed and without sufficient probable cause. The trial court granted his motion to suppress and subsequently dismissed the indictment upon the request of the State. The State now appeals, arguing that the officers had probable cause for the search of the spare tire and did not unreasonably detain the Defendant to complete the search. We agree with the State. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court granting the motion to suppress and remand for reinstatement of the indictment.

Petitioner, Randy Champion, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for especially aggravated robbery, attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, attempted aggravated robbery, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel (1) failed to use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror who was an active Tipton County prosecutor and (2) failed to object to the State’s inconsistent theories, thereby waiving this court’s plenary review of the issue on direct appeal. Following our review, we affirm.

Petitioner, William Carl Godfrey, initially agreed to plead guilty to domestic aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and vandalism under $1000.  During the plea submission hearing, Petitioner stated that he was not guilty.  The State then offered to accept a plea of “no contest,” and after discussion with trial counsel and the trial court, Petitioner accepted the no contest plea.  The trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years’ probation.  On appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his plea was unknowing and involuntary.  After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Donte Green, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions relating to the possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia resulting from law enforcement’s seizure of illegal substances from the Petitioner’s motel room pursuant to a search warrant. He claims that appellate counsel was ineffective due to her failure to challenge the validity of the search warrant on direct appeal. See State v. Donte Lavon Green, No. W2018-00092-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1595684 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 15, 2019), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 16, 2019). He also claims that his convictions are voidable due to the abridgement of his Fourth Amendment rights and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution because the search conducted by law enforcement was illegal and that the evidence seized should have been suppressed as a result. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Trendell Brady, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions for two counts of rape of a child and resulting effective fifty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel should have expressly advised him not to testify at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother as to two of her minor children on various grounds. The trial court ultimately concluded that grounds existed for termination and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother now appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Darryl Claxton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2015 Shelby County Criminal Court Jury conviction of first degree murder, arguing that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.