APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his children, the Sullivan 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.

In 2000, a Hamilton County jury convicted the Petitioner of the first degree murder of his wife and of the abuse of her corpse, and the trial court sentenced him to life plus two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This court affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. Boatfield, No. E2000-01500-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1635447, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Dec. 20, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 3, 2002). The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief, Boatfield v. State, No. E2005-01949-CCAR3- PC, 2006 WL 2135449 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 31, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2005), and federal habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging as newly discovered evidence a June 20, 2018 deposition in which the deponent stated that deponent’s brother, who was originally a suspect in this murder, admitted committing the murder. The Petitioner also alleged that a jewelry box taken at the time of the murder was found in the home of a suspect in the original investigation. After a hearing, the coram nobis court denied the Petitioner relief, and he now appeals. After review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

This appeal arises from the summary dismissal of a negligence action filed by a plaintiff-motorist against a truck driver and the driver’s employer. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured in a single-vehicle accident on Interstate 24 in Nashville, Tennessee,when he swerved to avoid tire debris from the truck driver’s trailer. The plaintiff further alleged that the truck driver and his employer were negligent in the maintenance and inspection of the vehicle, and that the truck driver acted negligently by leaving the debris on the roadway without attempting to retrieve it, warn other motorists, or call law enforcement. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding no evidence that the tire blowout was caused by a failure in the maintenance and inspection of the tire. The court also found no evidence that the truck driver’s failure to call law enforcement caused the accident. But the court asked for supplemental briefing on whether a driver has a common-law duty to remove from a roadway tire debris that came from his vehicle and/or a duty to warn motorists of the debris. After additional briefing and a second hearing, the court summarily dismissed that claim as well, ruling that the defendant truck driver had no duty as a matter of law to attempt to retrieve the tire from the interstate highway and that there were no facts to support a finding that the defendant driver had sufficient time to do so. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend, arguing that he was entitled to the benefit of an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence as a discovery sanction because the defendants failed to preserve the blown tire. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff knew about the potential spoliation issue for six years and failed to raise it in his response to the motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

A Knox County grand jury indicted the defendant, David Ware, for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and simple possession of marijuana. A jury subsequently convicted the defendant as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence suspended to supervised probation after six months of service in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and argues the trial court erred by granting one of the State’s peremptory challenges during jury selection. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jacob Evan Coyne, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202 (first degree murder); 39-13-403 (especially aggravated robbery). He received a total effective sentence of life plus 15 years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to show (1) evidence of premeditation, (2) evidence that the victim was robbed or that the Defendant intended to rob the victim, and because (3) evidence that was favorable to the Defendant was not given appropriate weight at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Michael McVay, appeals the
post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding his petition untimely. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the dismissal of the petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Eric Dewayne Wallace, of first degree felony murder and attempted first degree murder for offenses committed in 1992, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment and fifteen years. After discovering in 2021 that the Defendant was mistakenly assigned 1,174 days of pretrial jail credit and 312 days of behavior credit to both convictions, the trial court entered an order and corrected judgment for the conviction for attempted first degree murder, removing the credits to correct a clerical error under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s order on the basis that it abused its discretion, violated his due process rights and the prohibitions against double jeopardy, and failed to comply with Rule 17 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court and Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-209. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Bruce Antione Cole, of aggravated assault and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-five years in confinement and ordered the defendant pay $25,474.16 in restitution. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing and its restitution order. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence but remand for a hearing on the matter of restitution.

The Petitioner, Lacey Jones, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his convictions are void and his sentence is illegal due to various errors made at trial and sentencing, including violations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), evidentiary errors, improper sentencing, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner, Quincy D. Scott, was convicted of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to seventeen years as a Range II, multiple offender at eighty-five percent to be served consecutively to sentences in two other counties. After this court affirmed the judgment and the supreme court denied permission to appeal, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The post-conviction court granted Petitioner a delayed appeal to allow him to raise multiple evidentiary issues. In this delayed appeal, Petitioner challenges the admission of the same pieces of evidence and the testimony of three of the State’s witnesses. He also challenges the omission of evidence regarding the professional misconduct of a detective. The State contends Petitioner is entitled to no relief. The State also contends Petitioner was erroneously granted a delayed appeal because the record does not demonstrate prejudice. We are precluded from reviewing this issue based on the post-conviction court’s failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111(b). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court granting a delayed appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Defendant, Timothy Whitaker, was convicted following a jury trial of attempted second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon, two counts of aggravated assault with serious bodily injury, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of fourteen years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second-degree murder and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering partially consecutive sentences. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kevin Tuvarey Gilmore, pleaded guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to evading arrest creating a risk of death, a Class D felony.  See T.C.A. § 39-16-603 (2018).  Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant received a six-year sentence as a Range II offender, and the trial court would determine the manner of service.  After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.  

The Appellant, DeAngelo LeQuinte Berry, was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and received a sentence of life plus nine years.  On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence from a cellular telephone and a Facebook account because the evidence was not admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 901, that the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial after a witness referred to an assault rifle constitutes plain error, and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing.  Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Steve Leslie Smith, of public intoxication.  The trial court imposed a thirty-day sentence in the county workhouse to be suspended to supervised probation after five days of service.  On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence about a substance abuse and psychiatric facility near where the Defendant was arrested, and that the trial court committed plain error when it rejected his challenge for cause of three prospective jurors.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.  

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 litigation involving an incident that occurred in 2010. Suit was originally filed in 2011. After a voluntary nonsuit, the complaint was refiled in 2014. Years later, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add additional defendants. The trial court granted leave to amend but reserved ruling on whether the claims against the new parties would relate back to the date of the original complaint under the provisions of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03. The amended complaint was filed in 2018. The newly added defendants moved to dismiss on the basis that none of the elements required for relation back under Rule 15.03 had been shown to exist. After a hearing, the trial judge agreed and provided an oral ruling in favor of the defendants. Before a written order was entered to that effect, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit without prejudice. The trial court subsequently entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The trial court found that at that point in the proceeding, the allowance of a nonsuit was discretionary, and permitting a nonsuit after its oral ruling would have been unfairly prejudicial to the defendants. As such, it granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the basis that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and did not relate back to the filing of the original or refiled complaint. The plaintiffs filed motions to alter or amend or set aside the order, arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction at the moment the plaintiffs filed their notice of nonsuit, and therefore, the order of dismissal was void. They also argued that the trial court impermissibly relied on facts that were not found within the amended complaint in resolving the motion to dismiss. The trial court denied both motions. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Because appellant did not timely file a Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B recusal appeal, and the order appealed does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The defendant, Kenneth George Arnold, challenges his Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convictions of rape, aggravated sexual battery, and sexual battery by an authority figure, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the imposition of consecutive sentences. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The sole issue on appeal in this divorce action pertains to the coverture formula employed to fund the husband’s marital interest in the wife’s retirement account via a deferred distribution method. On the morning the case was set for a final hearing, the parties and their attorneys appeared in open court and announced they had agreed to the division of the marital estate with the exception of the implementing language required to fund the husband’s marital interest in the wife’s retirement account. Because the wife had a substantially larger account than the husband but lacked the financial resources to fund a present distribution of her retirement account, the parties announced in open court that they had agreed to an offset of their respective pensions and authorized the court to enter a final judgment using the coverture formula to affect a deferred distribution. Following the entry of the final order, the wife filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 motion to set aside the order, contending that the trial court applied a deferred distribution method that did not reflect the parties’ agreement. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Kejuan King, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to
twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s “prior threats, violent provocations, and other prior bad acts toward the defendant and others,” (2) the State failed to properly manage evidence, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he acted in selfdefense. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Madison County grand jury indicted the defendant, Johnny Jackson, Jr., for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and domestic assault. After a trial, a jury convicted the defendant of aggravated assault by strangulation and domestic assault and acquitted the defendant on the charge of aggravated kidnapping. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent terms of fifteen years for aggravated assault and eleven months and twenty-nine days for domestic assault to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court also affirmed the total effective fine of $2500 imposed by the jury. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erroneously relied on an inapplicable enhancement factor and failed to find any mitigation, and therefore, erred in sentencing the defendant to the maximum term of fifteen years. Additionally, the defendant claims the trial court erred in affirming the fine imposed by the jury without conducting the proper analysis and review. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we conclude the trial abused its discretion in applying one enhancement factor, failing to find any mitigation despite proof of the same in the record, and failing to conduct the proper analysis of the fine imposed by the jury. Therefore, we modify the defendant’s sentence for aggravated assault to thirteen years and remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of properly reviewing the jury imposed fine.

This is an appeal of a divorce involving children, which includes issues of default judgment, jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the statute of frauds, and attorney’s fees. The trial court granted a motion for default judgment against the husband only as to the wife’s counter-complaint for divorce and subsequently denied the motion to set aside the default judgment. Thereafter, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce holding that the wife was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and dismissed the husband’s complaint for divorce. The trial court divided the marital estate and adopted a permanent parenting plan. Additionally, the trial court awarded a judgment against the husband in the amount of $15,000.00 for the wife’s attorney’s fees and litigation expenses incurred. The husband appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellant stipulated that its employee was the at-fault driver in a motor vehicle accident involving Appellee. Appellee and his wife filed suit against Appellant for personal injuries and the issue of damages was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Appellees. Appellant appeals, arguing that the jury’s award of damages for loss of earning capacity, future medical expenses, permanent injury, and loss of consortium is contrary to the law and evidence. Because there is material evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we affirm the trial court’s judgment on same.