APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a controversy between a homebuyer, the plaintiff, and a residential developer/contractor concerning the construction and sale of a newly constructed custombuilt home and lot within a subdivision with restrictive covenants. The parties executed a fill-in-the-blank “Purchase and Sale Agreement” (“the Agreement”) pursuant to which the defendant agreed to construct a custom home and sell the home and lot to the plaintiff. The principal matter in dispute is whether the defendant was contractually obligated to provide a brick veneer on the retaining wall installed by the defendant. The Agreement did not expressly include the construction of a retaining wall; however, the parties agree that a retaining wall was to be constructed and included in the sale. Although the brick veneer had not been installed and the hotly disputed issue remained unresolved, the sale closed. Shortly thereafter, the buyer commenced this action in which she asserted, inter alia, claims for breach of contract and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to finish the retaining wall with brick veneer as required by the subdivision’s restrictive covenants and implicitly required by the Agreement. In its answer, the defendant denied liability and asserted that it had no obligation to provide a veneer finish on the retaining wall.

This is an action to quiet title to a strip of land used as an ingress/egress for property perpendicular to the land at issue.  The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff.  We affirm.

The Petitioner, Levie Roberts, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his conviction of second degree murder and resulting twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not notice before trial that the State’s “key” witness gave inconsistent statements to the police and because trial counsel failed to recall the witness to the stand in order to question her about the inconsistencies. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a divorce case. On appeal, the husband raises issues about the trial court’s property division and spousal support award. We generally affirm the trial court’s judgment. For the reasons discussed herein, however, we vacate the trial court’s partition of Husband’s railroad retirement pension benefits, not because of any error with the intended disposition, but for the entry of an order that is fully compliant with 20 C.F.R. § 295.3.

The defendant, Joseph Lawrence Street, appeals the denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 motion to reduce the sentence imposed for his 2018 convictions of automobile burglary.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his children, the Hickman County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) determined that several 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 father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.  The father has appealed.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiff challenges the order of the Sullivan County Circuit Court (“trial court”) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Liberty Insurance Corporation1 (“Liberty”), and dismissing his complaint on the merits with prejudice. The trial court granted summary judgment to Liberty based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its conclusion that the plaintiff would be unable to produce sufficient evidence at trial to withstand a motion for directed verdict. Because the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Liberty, albeit for a different reason than that found by the trial court.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court granted the parties a divorce instead of the annulment Husband requested, among other findings. Husband now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court.

The Appellant, Laseena Tirree White, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of theft of property valued $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction, suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that there was insufficient proof of her identity as the perpetrator and of the value of the stolen items. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Employee sustained a back injury during his employment with Employer. Employee subsequently resigned from his employment as a result of the injury and filed a workers’ compensation claim. The trial court determined the injury was compensable as an aggravation of pre-existing back problems and awarded benefits. Employer has appealed, asserting the trial court erred in finding the injury was compensable; in adopting the impairment rating assigned by the authorized treating physician; and in applying a four multiplier. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel found that an attorney should be suspended from the practice of law for three years for violating multiple provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court affirmed, finding that the hearing panel’s decision was supported by substantial and material evidence and was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.Finding no error, we affirm.

A doctor’s professional liability insurer refused to insure him against claims brought against him by his former partners and investigations of him being conducted by state and federal agencies. The trial court found that the insurer was not required to provide coverage for the doctor against the claims or the investigations. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Brett Rosasco (“Employee”) was injured when he was struck by a falling tree after he tried to use a portable restroom near his worksite. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims determined that Mr. Rosasco’s injury did not “arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of [his] employment” and granted summary judgment for West Knoxville Painters, LLC (“Employer”). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Mr. Rosasco’s appeal has been referred to this Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. After reviewing the evidence, we affirm the judgment.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing her claims against three healthcare entities. Because Appellant’s brief substantially fails to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal.

Defendant, Shawn Casey Walker, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated cruelty to animals, a Class E felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of an alternative sentence. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Lajuan Harbison, remains convicted of three counts each of attempted voluntary manslaughter and of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following remand for a resentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his overall sentence was not reasonably related to the severity of the offenses and that the trial court failed to properly account for his rehabiliative efforts while incarcereated prior to resentencing. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision.

This appeal involves review of a suggested additur which was accepted by the Defendant under protest. Because we conclude that the additur at issue satisfies the three-step review for adjustments made to a jury’s verdict, we affirm the trial court’s action.

In this post-divorce action, a former husband filed a motion to modify his alimony obligation after his former wife began living with a romantic partner.  The wife contended that she and her romantic partner equally divided their living expenses and that she still needed the previously awarded alimony despite her new living arrangement.  The trial court disagreed and suspended the husband’s alimony obligation retroactively to the filing of his petition to modify.  In addition to the alimony issue, the trial court determined that wife successfully proved two civil contempt claims against the husband, awarded her the reasonable attorney fees she incurred to prosecute those claims, and dismissed a civil contempt claim she raised regarding his late payment of the value of the wife’s interest in two certificates of deposit (“CD”) awarded to her in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement.  The wife appealed, challenging the suspension of the husband’s alimony obligation, the dismissal of her civil contempt claim, and the award of attorney fees.  Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in suspending the husband’s alimony obligation, we reverse that part of the court’s decision and remand for a determination of her reasonable attorney fees relating to that issue.  We affirm the part of the trial court’s judgment dismissing the civil contempt claim. 

The Petitioner, Bobby Ray Graves, Jr., appeals from the Warren County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his conviction for failure to appear.  See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-609.  On appeal, the Petitioner submits that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to call the Petitioner’s brother to testify in his defense at trial.  Then, requesting this court to apply the cumulative error doctrine, the Petitioner contends that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s “failures to properly object to the State’s impermissible statements during cross-examination and closing arguments,” trial counsel’s failure to present the Petitioner’s brother to testify, and trial counsel’s “fail[ure] to argue the missing witness rule.”  As a final issue, he submits that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to address the missing witness rule on appeal.  Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment denying relief. 

Following a jury trial, Arnold Draper Shawell (“Defendant”) was convicted of aggravated robbery, evading arrest, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration.  On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to cross-examine him about a robbery conviction from 1991 for the purposes of impeachment.  Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury found the Appellant, Curtis Dewayne Brown, guilty of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, two counts of aggravated assault, employment of a firearm during a dangerous offense, and possession of a firearm while having a prior violent felony conviction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that (1) the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by not allowing him to impeach Officer Downs with her preliminary hearing testimony regarding the number of muzzle flashes she saw; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce proof of the Appellant’s prior conviction of aggravated assault during the bifurcated proceeding on count six; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Casey Lynn Hopper, appeals his convictions for felony evading arrest causing a risk of death or injury, a Class D felony; reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle, a Class E felony; driving with a revoked license and reckless driving, Class B misdemeanors; and speeding, a Class C misdemeanor, and his effective twelve-year sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-103, -16-603(b)(3)(B), 55-8-152, -10-205, -50- 504. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by forcing the Defendant to choose whether to accept a plea offer or proceed to trial before the State produced complete discovery materials; (2) the State failed to collect or preserve favorable evidence, specifically a convenience store surveillance recording; (3) the State failed to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence, specifically a pair of binoculars; (4) the trial court improperly limited cross-examination by prohibiting the defense from introducing a photograph of a third party and questioning a police witness about him; (5) the Defendant’s convictions for felony evading arrest and reckless endangerment violate double jeopardy; (6) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (7) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Stacy L. Curry, entered a guilty plea to aggravated sexual battery and received an agreed-upon sentence of twenty years in prison. He filed various post-judgment motions, including the petition for post-conviction relief at issue on this appeal. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals, asserting he was entitled to a hearing. Because the record is inadequate to allow review of the basis of the post-conviction court’s dismissal, we conclude any challenge is waived and affirm the dismissal.