APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A driver appeals the circuit court’s decision that he violated an ordinance by committing careless driving. We affirm.

A Davidson County jury convicted Petitioner, Javarius Deshawn Baugh, of first degree premeditated murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective life sentence. Petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss her health care liability action against two defendants but retained jurisdiction to determine whether or not to award sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorneys. More than one year after the trial court entered the order of voluntary dismissal, but less than one year after the court entered an order on the sanctions issue, the plaintiff refiled her health care liability claims. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to refile her action within one year from the date the order of voluntary dismissal was entered. The trial court denied the motion based, in part, on its determination that the one-year statute of limitations did not commence until the date the sanctions order was entered because the first action did not conclude until then. Because we have determined that the one-year statute of limitations commenced on the date the court entered the order of voluntary dismissal, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for entry of an order granting the motion to dismiss.

The Defendant, Joseph Eugene Chestnut, Jr., was convicted by a Macon County jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder and four counts of aggravated cruelty to animals.  The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment.  On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the firearm seized during the warrantless search of his vehicle and that the evidence of premeditation is insufficient to support his conviction of first degree murder.  Following our review and pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count One to correct a clerical error.  Otherwise, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

John Jay Starnes, Defendant, was convicted following a bench trial of two counts of unlawfully and negligently placing a child in imminent danger in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-15-401(d)(2022). Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying diversion and by imposing a split-confinement sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended to probation after service of thirty days in jail. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a divorce case following a marriage of short duration. Husband
appeals the trial court’s award of transitional alimony and attorney’s fees as alimony in
solido to Wife. We affirm the award of transitional alimony, vacate the award of attorney’s
fees, and remand.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 10B. The appellant failed to attach a copy of the order denying his recusal
motions to his petition for recusal appeal, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in granting Appellee/Shelby County Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Appellant/Contractor. Because disputes of material fact and ambiguities arising therefrom exist, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is reversed.

The petitioner filed a petition seeking judicial review of certain interlocutory decisions
made by an administrative law judge during forfeiture proceedings conducted by the
Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security. The petitioner also raised
constitutional issues that had not been raised during the agency proceedings. The trial court
determined that it did not possess subject matter jurisdiction to review the interlocutory
agency decisions or other constitutional issues raised for the first time in the petition for
judicial review. The petitioner has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Amory K. Collins, of one count of burglary
and one count of criminal trespass. The trial court merged one count of criminal trespass
and the burglary conviction and then sentenced the Defendant to eight years of
incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain
his conviction for burglary because there was insufficient proof that he acted knowingly
with regard to the underlying theft or attempted theft. After review, we affirm the trial
court’s judgments.

After a bench trial, the trial court convicted the Defendant, Trevarius Dewayne Houston, of two counts of assault against a law enforcement officer, one count of retaliation for past action, one count of theft of merchandise, and one count of resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve a total effective sentence of two years, suspended to a year of probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. After review, we reverse the trial court’s judgments in Count 1 and Count 3 and affirm the remaining judgments.

In 2023, a Benton County jury convicted the Defendant, Kenneth Ray Smotherman, II, of
the sale of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant
as a career offender to thirty years of confinement, to be served at 60%. On appeal, the
Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the
trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury on facilitation or casual exchange as lesser-included
offenses. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The petitioner, LaCarl Tigg, appeals from the Circuit Court of Rutherford County’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction DNA Analysis and his pro se motion to vacate his guilty plea which the post-conviction court treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal.

The defendant, Traci Marie House, pled guilty to attempted possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a prior violent felony, and the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying her motion to reconsider her sentence. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her minor child, the
trial court determined that two statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear
and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing
evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s
best interest. The mother has appealed.1 Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Defendant, Ronnie Keith Rea, appeals from his convictions for three counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of solicitation of a minor. On appeal, he raises five issues. After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that four of the five issues have been waived. The only preserved issue is Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, which we find legally sufficient to support his convictions. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Defendant, Chelsea Louise Smith, appeals her Dickson County Circuit Court convictions for aggravated child abuse and first-degree felony murder committed in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, for which she received sentences of fifteen years and life, respectively. Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions; that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the proposed testimony of her expert in biomechanics; and that her constitutional right to present a defense was violated by the trial court’s exclusion of the proposed expert testimony. Following a thorough review, we affirm.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Teresa Kay Nolan, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, for which she received a total effective sentence of four years. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions for aggravated assault; (2) the trial court committed plain error by failing to provide a jury instruction on self-defense; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to cross-examine Defendant regarding her prior conviction for attempted impersonation of a licensed professional; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to cross-examine her regarding her violation of bond conditions. Upon review, we affirm the conviction in count 2 but remand for entry of a corrected judgment, reflecting Defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and imposing a concurrent one-year sentence. We affirm the judgments of conviction in counts 1 and 3 in all respects.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Appellee asks this Court to award frivolous appeal damages under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant Appellee its request for frivolous appeal damages.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract lawsuit following the sale of a body shop
business. Prior to the sale, the owner entered into a paint-purchasing agreement requiring
him to purchase $900,000 worth of paint over time in exchange for discounts and up-front
“pre-bate” payments. Under the paint-purchasing agreement, the paint supplier could
terminate the agreement if the business was sold without the supplier’s prior written
consent. The owner later sold his business to buyers pursuant to an asset purchase
agreement whereby the buyers agreed to take on the business’s paint-purchasing
obligations. The buyers initially kept buying paint from the same supplier but eventually
stopped. The paint supplier demanded repayment of the up-front funds from the prior
owner under his personal guarantee. The prior owner then sued the buyers, asserting that
they were required to hold him harmless. The buyers filed a counterclaim asserting that
the prior owner committed the first breach by selling the business without the paint
supplier’s consent, resulting in the buyers never receiving the expected value of the deal.
The trial court ruled in the prior owner’s favor. The buyers appeal. We affirm.

This is an unlawful detainer action in which the plaintiff landlord was awarded possession
and a judgment for unpaid rent and attorney fees when the defendant lessee refused to
vacate. We now affirm on appeal.

The Defendant, Nickalous Ladd a/k/a Nickalous Clark, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of convicted felon in possession of a firearm, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range IV career offender to fifteen years at 60% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue the Defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Leigh Ann Champion Thweatt, appeals the Lewis County Circuit Court’s revocation of her probation, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking her probation in full rather than allowing her to address her substance abuse issues on probation, contending that full revocation did not serve the ends of justice for the public or the Defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.