APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Michele Lee Ridgeway, pled guilty to two counts of the sale of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years suspended to supervised probation. Thereafter, the Defendant allegedly violated the terms of her probation by possessing drug paraphernalia in her residence. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the State proved that she violated the conditions of her suspended sentences; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking her probation as a consequence of the alleged violation. Upon our review, we conclude that the State did not prove that the Defendant violated the terms of her probation. Because we resolve the appeal on that basis, we do not reach the second issue. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse and vacate the revocation order and remand the case for dismissal of the revocation proceedings.

This is a Rule 10B interlocutory appeal of the denial of a second recusal motion. We find, as the trial court did, that the second motion is repetitive of the first and should be denied. We further grant attorney’s fees for a frivolous appeal.

This action involves the trial court’s denial of a petition for termination of a biological
father’s parental rights to his minor child. We now affirm.

A Henderson County jury convicted the Defendant, Cordero Klein Blake, of driving while
under the influence (“DUI”) of marijuana, first offense, possession of a handgun while
under the influence, driving on a suspended license, speeding, violation of registration law,
and violation of financial responsibility law. The trial court imposed a total effective
sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended to community corrections
supervision following service of seven days in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant
contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for DUI and possession
of a handgun while under the influence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Roy Gene Nicholson, III, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court convictions of reckless aggravated assault, evading arrest, possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver, and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-204 and that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by the trial court’s granting the State’s motion to continue his trial, during which time the State procured a superseding indictment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of three charges of criminal contempt. The appellant appeals those criminal contempt findings. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether Appellant preserved his evidentiary issues
concerning the trial court’s admission of video evidence in a jury trial, and (2) whether,
following a bench trial, the trial court made sufficient findings under Rule 52.01 when
rejecting Appellant’s COBRA claim. Because Appellant failed to include the evidentiary
issues in a motion for new trial as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e),
and because Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 13(b) and 36(b) are not applicable,
we conclude that Appellant waived the evidentiary issues. Further, because the trial court’s
order does not make sufficient findings, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of the
COBRA issue, and we remand for compliance with Rule 52.01.

This matter is before the Court upon the pro se petition of the Defendant, Patrick Jayson Reeners, for an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying the pro se motion to recuse herself. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 1.

The trial court determined Defendants/Appellants were liable for damages arising from
negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. We reverse.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Bradley Michael Lesniewski, was convicted of possession of a handgun by a felon; possession of a firearm by a felon-prior felony drug conviction; false imprisonment; evading arrest; possession of a Schedule I controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (Heroin); possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (0.5 grams or more of Methamphetamine); possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (Fentanyl); possession of drug paraphernalia; and driving while license is suspended, cancelled, or revoked. For these offenses, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions but remand for the merger of two counts and the entry of corrected judgment forms.

This appeal involves a long-running custody dispute between unmarried parents. In this
latest chapter of the litigation, the father filed a petition to modify, seeking to be named
primary residential parent and/or increase his parenting time. The mother filed a counterpetition,
seeking only a change in decision-making authority. The trial court denied the
father’s petition but did make several changes to the parenting schedule. The trial court
also granted the mother’s request to be named sole decision-maker for educational and
extracurricular decisions and allowed her to obtain passports for the children. Finally, the
trial court ordered the father to pay the mother’s attorney fees. The father appeals. We
vacate in part, affirm as modified, and remand for further proceedings.

An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction petitioned for a writ of mandamus. On its own motion, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.

Seventeen-year-old Antonio Demetrius Adkisson (a.k.a. Antonio Demetrius Turner, Jr.) (“the Defendant”) was charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the fatal shooting of two victims. The Gibson County Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) held a transfer hearing and found it appropriate to transfer the Defendant to the Gibson County Circuit Court (“the trial court”) to be prosecuted as an adult. After a jury trial, during which the Defendant’s videotaped statements were admitted into evidence, the Defendant was convicted of two counts of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. See State v. Adkisson, No. W2022-01009-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 1252173 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2024). The Defendant requested permission to appeal to this Court, alleging (1) the juvenile court lacked probable cause to believe he committed the charged offenses, as required for transfer by Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-134(a)(4)(A), and (2) the trial court erred in admitting his confession at trial because he did not validly waive his right to remain silent and his confession was involuntary. We hold that the Defendant was properly transferred to the trial court. We further hold that the Defendant validly waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but his confession was unlawfully coerced in violation of the Due Process Clause and thus inadmissible at trial. Having found reversible error on that basis, we vacate the Defendant’s convictions of second-degree murder and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of a conservatorship proceeding against the petitioner under Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-114. The petitioner sought a conservatorship for the respondent—the petitioner’s 84-year-old father—to protect his father and to prevent him from wasting his assets. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was a disabled person in need of a conservatorship and that it was in the respondent’s best interest that the petitioner be appointed his conservator. But the court charged the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner rather than the property of the respondent. The court reasoned, inter alia, that the petitioner benefited from the conservatorship and that the respondent’s need for a conservatorship was “borderline” and “not clear cut.” The petitioner appeals. Having reviewed the trial court’s discretionary decisions pursuant to the three-part analysis set forth in Lee Medical Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010), we have determined that the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner was based on an erroneous assessment of the relevant facts and a misapplication of the relevant legal principles. Accordingly, we vacate the decision and remand with instructions to assess all the guardian ad litem fees against the property of the respondent, the amount of which has already been approved, and to assess against the property of the respondent the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs the petitioner incurred in the trial court and on appeal, the amount of which is to be determined on remand. The trial court shall also determine the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the attorney ad litem in this appeal and assess those charges against the property of the respondent.

The majority concludes that Antonio Demetrius Adkisson’s confession to law enforcement officers was involuntary and vacates his two convictions for second-degree murder. Whether Adkisson’s confession was voluntary under the Tennessee and United States Constitutions is a close question. But applying the same totality-of-the circumstances test as the majority, I conclude that the confession here was the product of Adkisson’s own free will, not police coercion. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s analysis of that issue and from the Court’s judgment vacating Adkisson’s convictions.

Husband and Wife divorced. In ruling upon contested matters, the trial court awarded Wife transitional alimony and alimony in futuro as well as attorney’s fees. Husband appealed. He argues the trial court’s award of alimony was error because the court miscalculated his income, because it errantly excluded certain evidence, and because it awarded the wrong type of alimony. He also argues that Wife’s attorney’s fees affidavit was insufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees. We affirm.

This appeal involves a grandmother and grandfather’s petition to terminate the parental
rights of a father to two of his children. The petition alleged the following grounds for
termination: (1) abandonment by failure to visit, (2) abandonment by failure to support,
and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court
held that each ground was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court also
determined that the termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
The father appeals. We ultimately affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights but
must vacate the trial court’s determination regarding the failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The pro se Defendant has filed an application seeking an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation. Upon preliminary consideration, we determine that the application is procedurally insufficient for this court’s review. Therefore, the State need not file an answer to the application. The Defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal is DENIED

Defendant, Roderick Darnell Stafford, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Counts 1 and 2, one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony drug offense in Count 3, and one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Count 4. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged in Counts 2 and 3, with the trial court to determine the length, manner, and alignment of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to four years’ confinement for Count 2 and five years’ confinement for Count 3, ordering the sentences to run consecutively for an effective sentence of nine years’ confinement. The remaining counts were dismissed. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) imposing enhanced sentences, (2) ordering consecutive alignment of his sentences, and (3) ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. After review, we remand the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment forms for Counts 1 and 4. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Laquala Malone, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one
count of aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the
Defendant’s application for judicial diversion and imposed a three-year sentence to be
served on supervised probation. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred
by denying her request for judicial diversion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The plaintiff in this action sought to collaterally attack a child support judgment and raised allegations of constitutional and other violations of law by several named defendants, including Child Support Services, the plaintiff’s former spouse, and the State of Tennessee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, determining, inter alia, that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Nakeavious Milan, entered a guilty plea to one count of voluntary
manslaughter, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-211 (Supp. 2022). Pursuant
to his plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to
eight years, with the trial court to determine whether the Defendant would be permitted to
serve his sentence on probation. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the
Defendant’s request for full probation and ordered him to serve his eight-year sentence in
confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his request for full probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.

The Defendant, Kyle Baptiste, appeals his Hardeman County Circuit Court conviction of
rape, for which he received a sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Discerning
no error, we affirm.