APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Jeremy Jones, Petitioner, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Jeremy Jones, No. W2015-01528-CCQA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 7654954 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 26, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 20, 2017). Petitioner sought post-conviction relief on various grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s lack of communication and trial strategy. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and dismissed the petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Jermaine Elvey Crawford, appeals from the revocation of his probationary sentences in Carroll County Circuit Court case 14-CR-115 and Henry County Circuit Court case 15793. By agreement between the parties, a combined hearing was held on the probation violation warrants in both cases. Defendant asserts that there was no substantial evidence that he violated his probation. Based on the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.

This appeal concerns an issue of whether a modular home violates a subdivision’s restrictive covenants. Katie Price (“Price”) wanted to place a modular home on her property in Fort Loudon Estates subdivision. Cathy McKeehan (“McKeehan”), a longtime resident of Fort Loudon Estates, sued Price in the Chancery Court for Loudon County (“the Trial Court”). McKeehan alleged that Price’s modular home violated a subdivision restriction against temporary structures. After a bench trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Price. McKeehan appeals. The evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that Price’s home is not a temporary structure. We hold, as did the Trial Court, that Price’s modular home is not prohibited by the subdivision’s restrictions. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Petitioner, Dewey Abbott III, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree murder conviction and his agreed upon fifteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the
post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the
post-conviction court.

This is a lawsuit that challenges the appropriateness of care received by a cancer patient. Plaintiff originally filed suit in January 2018 and asserted a number of claims, some of which were predicated on alleged conduct occurring as early as August 2014. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff expanded her allegations, taking issue with conduct occurring as late as September 2016. The trial court ultimately dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in toto as it concerned the Defendants at issue in this appeal. Due to a lack of clarity regarding the court’s specific bases for dismissal with respect to each of the claims involved, we vacate the judgment and remand for further consideration and findings.

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, Timothy M. Dawson, appeals his Loudon County Criminal Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, arguing that he is entitled to a new trial on grounds that he was incapacitated during the Momon colloquy. See Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999). Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s interpretation of a divorce decree and an incorporated marital dissolution agreement as applied in a conservatorship once the husband died. The wife appeals the trial court’s use of parol evidence in reaching its decision. We reverse the judgment.

The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant, Philip James Burt, stated that appellant was appealing the judgment entered on September 13, 2021. As the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this case involving the plaintiff corporation’s challenge to the business tax assessed against it by the defendant, Tennessee Commissioner of Revenue David Gerregano (“Commissioner”), the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court upheld the business tax assessed against the plaintiff at a retail tax rate, rather than the lower wholesale tax rate that the plaintiff argued was applicable, and which the plaintiff had paid. Granting summary judgment in favor of Commissioner, the trial court awarded to Commissioner a judgment for unpaid taxes in the amount of $141,004.70 plus interest from the date of the adjusted assessment. The plaintiff prematurely appealed the grant of summary judgment prior to the trial court’s entry of a post-judgment order awarding statutory attorney’s fees and expenses to Commissioner. Following entry of the post-judgment order, this appeal proceeded concerning the summary judgment order. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The defendant, Kemontea Dovon McKinney, appeals his Robertson County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and theft, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting his pretrial statement into evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the evidence established that he acted in self-defense.  Because the trial court erred by admitting the defendant’s statement into evidence and because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s convictions are reversed and remanded for a new trial.  Because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree premeditated murder but sufficient to support a conviction of second degree murder, that conviction must be modified to one of second degree murder.  The evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdicts of felony murder, aggravated robbery, and theft.  Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on two counts of felony murder, one count of second degree murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and, one count of theft of property.

This is an appeal from a governmental tort liability case in which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant governmental entity on the basis that it retained its immunity.  Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.  Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the trial court failed to consider their expert affidavit.  On appeal, we reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Petitioner, Timothy Lee Armstrong, appeals from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and to sentence him because the indictment was not filed by the court clerk, that the judgments against him are void because they do not contain a filestamp date and that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition before he was allowed additional time to file a response to the State’s motion to dismiss. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Adam Dewayne Holmes, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of facilitation of possession with intent to sell heroin, facilitation of possession with intent to deliver heroin, possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone, possession with intent to deliver less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drugfree zone, and simple possession, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of what he alleges to be an unlawful vehicle search. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Terry Lee McAnulty, appeals his Tipton County Circuit Court jury conviction of aggravated vehicular homicide, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident that caused the death of the victim. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Timothy Howard Smartt, challenges the revocation of his community corrections placement on grounds that the sentence in case number 277012 expired before the issuance of the revocation warrant and that the court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of the total remaining sentences in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Edwin Alfonso Reeves, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of Count I, criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony; and Count II, possession with the intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a
drug-free zone, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-212 (2018) (criminally negligent homicide); 39-17- 417(a)(4), (c)(2)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance); 39-17-432 (b)(1)(B) (establishing drug-free zones) (2018) (subsequently amended). The Defendant also pleaded guilty to Count III, possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a drug-free zone. The court sentenced the Defendant to serve two years for criminally negligent homicide, four years for one possession conviction, and three years for the other possession conviction. The court imposed the sentences consecutively to each other, for an effective nine-year sentence, to be served consecutively to a sentence the Defendant was serving at the time of sentencing. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions in Counts I and II of criminally negligent homicide and possession of a Schedule II drug, and that the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The driver of a vehicle covered by a general automobile liability policy notified the insurance carrier of a potential uninsured motorist claim. The insurance carrier responded that the named insured had rejected in writing uninsured motorist coverage for vehicles in use in Tennessee. The driver claimed that the prior rejection was no longer effective because the named insured had submitted a new application during the renewal process. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the policy did not include uninsured motorist coverage. We conclude that the prior written rejection remained in effect when the policy was renewed. And because the named insured did not submit a new application in connection with the renewal transaction, we affirm.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff—a citizen of the City of Manchester, Tennessee, who was “the next highest vote getter” for Alderman, but not elected in the most recent election—contends he is entitled to fill a mid-term vacancy on the Board of Aldermen. The dispute arose when the City’s Board of Aldermen announced it was accepting applications to fill the vacant seat on the Board. In the Complaint that followed, the plaintiff asked the court to declare the proper procedure for filling a mid-term Board vacancy under the City’s Charter. The trial court dismissed the Complaint pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), explaining that the Complaint failed to state a claim because the unambiguous language in the Charter did not entitle the plaintiff to the vacant seat. The court also ruled the plaintiff did not have standing “as a citizen.” On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court should have declared the rights of the parties instead of dismissing the declaratory judgment action under Rule 12.02(6) and asserts that he had standing as the “next highest vote getter” in the last election. While motions to dismiss “are rarely appropriate in declaratory judgment actions,” Cannon Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Wade, 178 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citation omitted), the plaintiff has not shown that he was prejudiced by the decision. This is because, after thoroughly analyzing the City’s Charter in the context of the facts stated in the Complaint, the court concluded that the Charter was unambiguous and provided no circumstance in which the “next highest vote getter” from the previous election would be entitled to fill a mid-term vacancy. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter judgment holding that Plaintiff is not entitled to fill the vacancy on the Board of Alderman under Article IV, §6(c) by virtue of the fact that he was the next highest vote getter at the election preceding the occurrence of a vacancy.

The Appellant, Gary Dewayne Glasgow, was convicted in the Hamblen County Criminal Court of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to eight years in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error by ruling he could not introduce the victim’s prior inconsistent statement into evidence and that the trial court erred by using an out-of-state conviction to enhance his sentencing range. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s action was untimely and violated the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for White County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Hope H. (“Mother”) to her minor son Zian L. (“the Child”). After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights on three grounds and finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest, all by the standard of clear and convincing evidence. Mother appeals, arguing that the Juvenile Court erred in its best interest determination. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety.

A Shelby County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Johnny Ingle, for aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and domestic assault. Before these charges were resolved, the Defendant filed a habeas corpus petition, which the trial court summarily dismissed as inappropriately filed before there was a final conviction. Based upon the Defendant’s frustration with his case, the trial court held a hearing to address the Defendant’s complaints. During the hearing, the trial court found the Defendant in contempt of court and sentenced him to ten days. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it found him in contempt of court. Our review of the record revealed that the Defendant failed to timely file his appeal, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

This is a negligence case arising out of an injury suffered by the plaintiff when he fell off a ladder at the defendant’s cabin which was then under construction. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish his claim. The plaintiff appeals. We conclude that there is no dispute of material fact and that summary judgment in favor of the defendant was properly granted. Accordingly, we affirm.