APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-105, the bad faith penalty statute, to automobile insurance policies. The trial court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment holding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-105 did not apply to automobile insurance policies. The insured appeals. We affirm.

A foreign corporation sought to have a default judgment entered against it set aside on the basis that service of process was ineffective, rendering the judgment void. Because the proof before the court at the time it entered the default fails to demonstrate that service by mail complied with Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the default judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant-Appellant, Anthony Eugene Reed, was convicted by a Sequatchie County jury of theft of property valued over $10,000, to wit: a Jeep Wrangler, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-103, and sentenced to seven years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for theft because the State failed to establish his intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property; and (2) the prosecution made improper comments during closing arguments which indirectly commented on his decision not to testify in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is the second appeal in this action for breach of a contract to purchase improved real property. Prior to the first appeal, the trial court, having found following a bench trial that the defendant buyers, Arnold Brush and Pamela Sue Brush, had breached the parties’ purchase and sale agreement, initially entered damage awards in favor of the plaintiffs, who included the sellers, Richard J. Hartigan and Leila R. Hartigan; the Hartigans’ realtor, James M. Henry d/b/a Coldwell Banker Jim Henry & Associates (“Coldwell Banker”); and a realty company, Lakeway Realty Group, Inc. (“Lakeway Realty”), with whom the Brushes had entered into a buyer representation agreement. Mr. Brush, by then acting individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Pamela Sue Brush, appealed to this Court, raising issues concerning the trial court’s calculations of damages and pre-judgment interest. This Court affirmed the judgment in favor of Lakeway Realty but vacated the award of damages and prejudgment interest to the Hartigans and the calculation of prejudgment interest awarded to Coldwell Banker. This Court directed that upon remand, the trial court was to enter additional findings of fact regarding the fair market value of the property, with further proceedings as necessary, and recalculate the amount of prejudgment interest awarded to Coldwell Banker.

The appellee, Linda R. Kerley (“Appellee”), filed a motion to dismiss this appeal alleging that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The defendant, Cassius Dominique Ivory, appeals his Rutherford County Circuit Court jury convictions of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, arguing that the State failed to disclose a preferential agreement with a witness, that the State failed to produce certain pretrial statements, that the trial court failed to merge certain offenses, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.  Because the record establishes that the State did not fail to disclose a preferential agreement or pretrial statements, the trial court properly merged the offenses, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Lawrence County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Simon Dean Porter, for aggravated rape of a child and aggravated child abuse of his sixteen-month-old son. A jury convicted the Defendant as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighty-five years. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-531, 39-15-402(a)(1). On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) proof connecting him to these offenses; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim’s injuries; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A review of the record on appeal reveals that the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal arises from a petition to probate a handwritten instrument as a codicil to the decedent’s last will and testament. The parties stipulated that the purported holographic will was in the handwriting of the decedent and that she was of sound mind and disposing memory at the time the purported holographic will was written. Additionally, the trial court found that the writing expressed a testamentary intent on the part of the decedent. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the petition, holding that the writing did not satisfy the signature requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-105 because, inter alia, the decedent’s name, Micki D. Thompson, was not subscribed to the writing. Instead, she merely identified herself within the writing in the third person as “Micki.” The court found the word “Micki” was not the decedent’s signature. The petitioner appeals, contending the handwritten instrument satisfies Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-105 because a testator’s name need not be “subscribed” as long as the name, or a portion thereof, is “inserted in some part of [the writing]” and the other requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-105 are satisfied. We agree because the decedent’s name was inserted in the writing, it was established that she was of sound mind and disposing memory, and the writing expresses a testamentary intent on the part of the decedent. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to admit the handwritten instrument to probate as a codicil to the decedent’s last will and testament.

The petitioner, Clark Derrick Frazier, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns post-divorce residential parenting schedule matters and findings of criminal contempt. Corey L. Choate (“Father”) and Amanda Kay Choate (Ralston) (“Mother”), parents of daughter BC and younger son RC, divorced in 2015. Some years later, Father filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”), seeking to modify the most recently entered permanent parenting plan and to have Mother found in criminal contempt. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order regarding the children’s custody and Mother’s criminal contempt. As relevant, Father was granted complete custody of RC.Mother was found guilty of 573 counts of criminal contempt in connection with her failure to follow the parenting plan. Mother appeals, arguing among other things that she lacked adequate notice of the criminal contempt charges because the Trial Court failed to read the charges aloud to her in open court upon her request. We find, inter alia, that Father’s detailed Second Amended Notice of Criminal Contempt, as well as the Trial Court’s written order entered before trial specifically finding that Mother was on notice of the charges, reflect that Mother received adequate notice of the criminal contempt charges against her. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety and remand for an award to Father of his reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding filed by Wife in Tennessee.  Husband objected to the trial court’s divorce jurisdiction and any custody determination concerning the parties’ minor children.  Ultimately, the trial court found that it had jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce, as well as any custody determinations.  In connection with granting the parties a divorce, the trial court awarded Wife an equalizing distribution of the marital assets and attorney’s fees.  The trial court also found Husband to be in contempt due to his alleged violation of the statutory restraining order set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-106(d) and his failure to return one of the parties’ minor children to Wife’s custody following summer visitation.  Husband now appeals numerous aspects of the trial court’s findings.  Upon our review of the record before us, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

In this healthcare liability action, the plaintiff sued several medical professionals and facilities. Following an amended complaint, which had removed multiple parties from the action, the remaining defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint that included allegations of comparative fault against a doctor that the plaintiff had removed as a party to the action in the amended complaint. The defendants did not file a certificate of good faith in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122, which is required when a defendant alleges comparative fault against a “non-party.” Following a motion by the plaintiff, the trial court entered an order striking the defendants’ allegations of comparative fault. The trial court further found that the defendants had not demonstrated good cause to support an extension of time to file a certificate of good faith. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellant challenges the chancery court’s order dismissing his petition for a declaratory judgment enjoining the State of Tennessee Attorney General, District Attorney General for the Tenth Judicial District, and an assistant district attorney general from enforcing his 2004 criminal convictions, which the appellant claimed had resulted in an illegal sentence. The chancery court dismissed Mr. Frazier’s petition because, inter alia, it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. We affirm the chancery court’s order of dismissal.

A Monroe County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Robert Charles Atkins, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction, contending that the State failed to establish that he was the perpetrator of the crime or, in the alternative, that he acted with premeditation. The Appellant also contends that the trial court erred by allowing a State’s witness to testify regarding threats he received prior to trial to explain his nervous demeanor in court. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child. In addition to disputing the grounds for termination and best interest, Mother argues on appeal that she should have been appointed counsel in the termination proceeding and that the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-6-401. We conclude that the record demonstrates that Mother expressly waived her right to counsel and failed to show that the waiver was ineffective. We further hold that section 33-6-401 was inapplicable in this case. Finally, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence was presented of both the grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest. As such, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 

The Defendant, Corey Paul Terry, pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary in 2010, two counts of aggravated burglary in 2011, and tampering with evidence in 2018. Due to various prior probation violations, the Defendant was serving an effective six years on probation for all the offenses in 2019 when he was charged with violating his probation. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court lacked substantial evidence to find that he violated the conditions of his probation and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Brandon Banks, pleaded guilty to first degree murder and aggravated cruelty to animals, and he received an effective life sentence. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, asserting that his life sentence is illegal because it is equivalent to a sentence of life without parole or a sentence of death. The trial court summarily denied relief, and the Defendant appeals. Because the Defendant did not raise a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Appellant, Zackari Tennant, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; carjacking, a Class B felony; and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of twenty-three years at 100% in the Department of Correction.  The Appellant raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by precluding him from introducing evidence that he was only sixteen years old at the time of the offenses; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by not giving adequate weight to his youth as a factor in mitigation.  Based on our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

The Defendant, Terrance B. Smith, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he challenged his life sentence resulting from his first degree murder conviction for an offense that occurred in 1998. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In 2012, the Defendant, David Herl, entered a guilty plea to theft of property valued over $1,000, and he received a sentence of four years, suspended to probation. On July 2, 2013, a warrant was issued, alleging that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. The warrant was not served on the Defendant until September 18, 2020. The Defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The trial court refused to dismiss the proceedings, found the Defendant to have violated the terms of his probation, and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the charges. We conclude that the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Robert Brooks, was convicted of reckless endangerment, aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for reckless endangerment to be served consecutively to Defendant’s effective ten-year sentence for aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and assault. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred by denying his peremptory challenge to strike Juror 7. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a divorce, a husband appeals the trial court’s division of his military retirement benefit. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s order.

This appeal arises from a motion filed by Brian Coblentz (“Employee”) to compel Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (“Employer”) to provide medical treatment under the terms of a consent order previously entered by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Employee’s motion. Employee has appealed, and 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.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Tarik Deshawn Newman, for one count each of aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury, and theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000.  Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of nineteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility.  On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; and (5) that the sentences were excessive.  Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.