APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a trial, an Anderson County jury convicted Defendant, Wallace Wade Tidwell, of aggravated robbery, and Defendant was sentenced, as a career offender, to thirty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because the State failed to file a proper notice under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(a). Defendant further contends that the trial court committed per se reversible error by instructing jurors that they could not question witnesses. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I agree with the majority opinion that any alleged Fourth Amendment violation does not bar Defendant’s conviction. I respectfully disagree that the evidence did not show that Defendant intentionally prevented or obstructed the service of the criminal summons and recklessly assaulted officer Kelly Mason.

The Defendant, Robert Daniel Owens, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count each of aggravated burglary, domestic assault, assault, and aggravated stalking, and he received an effective sentence of four years on supervised probation after service of eleven months, twenty-nine days in confinement, followed by a consecutive sentence of two years on unsupervised probation. A revocation warrant was issued, and following a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jerry Louis Fitzgerald, Jr., was convicted at trial of sexual battery and possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, and he received an effective sentence of fourteen years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of sexual battery and that although he possessed the cocaine, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he intended to sell or deliver it. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Patricia Kaye Wilkey, appeals her conviction of first degree premeditated murder, for which she received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of the State’s witnesses; (3) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements; (4) the State made improper comments during closing arguments; and (5) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Upon reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s order affirming the award of an arbitrator.  Appellant filed suit against its former employee, the Appellee, alleging breach of contract for violation of certain provisions of the employee handbook, which also contained an arbitration clause.  Because the handbook does not constitute an enforceable employment contract, the trial court erred in ordering the parties to arbitrate and in affirming the arbitrator’s award.  Reversed and remanded.

In this landlord-tenant dispute, the circuit court concluded that the landlord violated the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“Landlord/Tenant Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-28-101 to -522, and awarded the tenants $3,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages. The landlord appealed the punitive damages award. Because the landlord failed to file either a transcript or statement of the evidence, we conclusively presume that the record would have supported an award of punitive damages, and we affirm the circuit court’s judgment as modified.

Defendant, Mischa Knight Claiborne, was indicted by the Scott County Grand Jury for four counts of aggravated battery, one count of solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated sexual battery, nine counts of sexual battery, one count of rape, and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, one count of solicitation of a minor, nine counts of sexual battery, one count of rape, and the continuous sexual abuse of a child charge was dismissed. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered Defendant to serve an effective 15 years’ incarceration. Defendant appeals his sentences as excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Daljit Singh, appeals the criminal court’s dismissal of his general sessions appeal from payment of a traffic citation after he filed a motion to withdraw payment of the citation. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Lee Potts, appeals his jury conviction for attempted second-degree murder, for which he received a Range I sentence of twelve years’ incarceration.  In this direct appeal, the Defendant alleges that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by prohibiting the defense expert from testifying about the reasoning and science upon which he based his opinion of the Defendant’s mental condition at the time of shooting; (3) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after the trial court stated in the jury’s presence that defense counsel could “rehabilitate” and “clean up” the expert’s testimony; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant, both in imposing the maximum sentence, as well as in imposing a sentence of continuous confinement.  Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Sedrick Darion Mitchell, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.  Following our review, we affirm the
post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

During a time when the Tennessee judicial system was grappling with the lingering effects of COVID-19, a Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Neal Scott Daniels, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”); driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent (“DUI per se”); simple possession of marijuana; driving on a revoked license; failing to provide evidence of financial responsibility; DUI per se fourth offense; and DUI by impairment fourth offense. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of two years to be suspended to four years on supervised probation after serving 150 days in jail. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue on the grounds that courtroom procedures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with his right to a fair trial; 2) his right to confrontation was denied when he was made to wear a face mask during trial; 3) his right to the effective assistance of counsel was denied by requiring trial counsel and jurors to wear masks; 4) the trial court erred by admitting the results of his blood alcohol test because a valid chain of custody was not established; 5) the judgments of conviction in counts 6 and 7 are invalid because the indictment failed to include the dates of Defendant’s prior convictions; and 6) there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for simple possession of marijuana. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Lesa Annette White McCulloch, appeals her convictions for one count of initiating the manufacture of methamphetamine, three counts of simple possession of a controlled substance, one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, and one count of possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia, and her resulting sixteen-year sentence. The Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search of the Defendant’s home; (2) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for the State’s failure to preserve material evidence and by declining to issue a special jury instruction; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell; (4) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s prior bad acts; (5) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by commenting on the Defendant’s intelligence; (6) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; and (7) the trial court erred in determining her sentencing range and by ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm; however, we remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 1 due to a clerical error.

In this case involving allegations of attorney misconduct and negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorneys and their respective firms. The defendants had previously represented the plaintiffs in a wrongful death lawsuit until the defendants withdrew from representation. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs had failed to refute the affidavit of one defendant attorney, who opined that the pertinent standard of care had not been breached. The plaintiffs have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this divorce action, the husband contends that the trial court erred by: (1) declining to award him alimony; (2) declining to adopt his valuation of the couple’s three Subway franchises; (3) finding that he dissipated $65,000 from the marital estate; (4) awarding the wife a larger share of the marital estate; (5) imputing income of $58,000 to him for child support purposes; and (6) declining to award him his attorney’s fees at trial. We affirm the trial court’s rulings on all but one of these issues, finding that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s determination regarding the amount of marital assets the husband dissipated. We also deny the husband’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

The Appellant, Desean Allen Blackman, was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and received concurrent nine-year sentences to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing a law enforcement officer to testify that the Appellant invoked his right not to speak with the officer. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. We also conclude that the trial court erred but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a divorce. Melanie Miller Hollis (“Wife”) sued Charles Myers Hollis, Jr. (“Husband”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court granted Husband a divorce based upon Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct. The Trial Court also divided the marital estate and awarded Wife alimony and child support. Wife appeals, arguing that the Trial Court erred by failing to classify and value as part of the marital estate Husband’s “book of business” from his job as a financial advisor at UBS, a financial services firm. Husband raises separate issues regarding child support, alimony, and the division of the marital estate. Discerning no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety. We also remand for the Trial Court to determine and enter an award to Wife of her reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, but only as they relate to issues of child support and alimony.

The petitioner, Christopher Desmond Simpson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel.  After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Nikos Burgins, was convicted by a jury of five counts of aggravated rape, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of ninety-six years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, contending that the State failed to establish removal or confinement that exceeded the accompanying felonies and that the evidence only established one count of especially aggravated kidnapping per victim; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach the Defendant with a prior aggravated assault conviction; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the two victims to be present in the courtroom prior to their testimony; and (4) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s letters, averring that they were not properly authenticated. Following our review, we remand the case for the entry of corrected judgments reflecting one conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping per victim.

The plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Having determined that the plaintiff has waived arguments related to his breach of contract claim, we review solely the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure. We conclude that the defendants did not strictly comply with the notice requirements of the deed of trust, vacate the portion of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants with respect to the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claim, and set aside the foreclosure sale. We affirm the trial court’s order with respect to the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. We decline to award the defendants damages pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-1- 122.

Following a bench trial, the defendant, Mark Christopher Beasley, was convicted in Case Number 20CR4 of two counts of violation of the conditions of community supervision for life; two counts of failure to appear; and one count of violation of the sexual offender registry and, in Case Number 21CR4, of two counts of violation of the conditions of community supervision for life; one count of tampering with, removing, or vandalizing a tracking device; and one count of tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed effective sentences of one year and four years, respectively, to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of five years. On appeal, the defendant asserts the proof is insufficient to sustain his conviction for tampering with evidence in Case Number 21CR4 and, in the alternative, his convictions for tampering with evidence and tampering with, removing, or vandalizing a tracking device violate principles of double jeopardy. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Rashaud Deavon Watson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel and entered a voluntary and intelligent plea.  Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

I respectfully dissent with the portion of the majority opinion concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence. It bears repeating at the outset that while the focus of this appeal is on the tampering with evidence conviction, Tenn. Code Ann. Section 39-16-503, a Class C felony, the Defendant was also charged with and does not dispute his conviction of tampering with evidence pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Section 40-39-304, a Class A misdemeanor (requiring minimum of 180 service).2 In my view, the evidence adduced at trial failed to show that the Defendant had the requisite action and intent to conceal the GPS device by placing it in the trash can at a convenience store.

The defendant, Jamar Laquan Braden, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of theft of property and unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon for which he received an effective sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction.  On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue.  Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}

The defendant, Byron Cole Tucker, pled guilty to aggravated assault for which he received a sentence of five years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspended to five years of supervised probation.  The trial court also ordered the defendant pay $39,028.49 in restitution through monthly payments of no less than $350.  On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s restitution order.  After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.