APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Gwendolyn Jumper (“Employee”) filed this action against Kellogg Company (“Employer”), seeking workers’ compensation benefits for an injury to her back. Following a hearing, the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denied Employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Employee has appealed. 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.

In this divorce action, the husband appeals the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro to the wife. Because the trial court’s final order contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its alimony award under Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we vacate the alimony award and remand this case to the trial court for the entry of a more detailed order.

In 1997, a jury convicted the Petitioner, Montez Adams, of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, and theft over $500, and he received an effective life sentence. On appeal, this court vacated the conviction for especially aggravated burglary and ordered the entry of a conviction for aggravated burglary and an accompanying ten-year sentence. State v. Montez Antuan Adams, et. al., No. 02C01-9709-CC-00352, 1998 WL 556174, at *1, 2 n.1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 1, 1998), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 5, 1999). In the following years, the Petitioner litigated post-judgment motions, including a petition for post-conviction relief. It appears that a new judgment form reflecting the Petitioner’s conviction for aggravated burglary rather than especially aggravated burglary was not entered until 2019. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed this instant second petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that the new judgment form reset the statute of limitations with regard to his claims of post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was not timely and that the claims had been either previously determined or waived. We conclude that the delayed entry of the corrected judgment, as mandated by this court in 1998, does not permit the Petitioner to relitigate the post-conviction claims raised in his petition. Accordingly, the dismissal is affirmed.

The Defendant-Appellant, Douglas Eugene Horton, was convicted by a Henderson County jury of nineteen counts of various drug related offenses, for which he received a total effective sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, and 26; we reverse the judgments of the trial court in Counts 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 31 due to insufficient evidence, and we vacate these convictions; and we remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Stanley Jefferson, of aggravated rape, two counts of especially aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and theft of property valued at more than $1,000, and he received an effective sentence of fifty-eight years. The sole issue raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for the aggravated rape conviction. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and we affirm the convictions. We remand for any further proceedings necessary to correct an error in the sentence related to the Defendant’s theft conviction.

We granted this extraordinary appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the trial court considered the proper statute, the relevant facts, and the arguments advanced by the parties, we conclude that the application for an extraordinary appeal was improvidently granted. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

The Defendant, Anthony Lee Carter, appeals from his Madison County Circuit Court conviction for driving as a motor vehicle habitual offender (“MVHO”), for which he received a six-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that after his arrest and before his trial, our legislature amended the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act such that the Defendant was entitled to the benefit of a lesser penalty under our criminal savings statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-112 (savings statute), 55-10-601 (MVHO Act). Following our review, we conclude that when the legislature removed the offense of driving as a MVHO and the associated penalty and replaced it with a mechanism for MVHOs to petition for reinstatement of their driver’s licenses, the legislature enacted a lesser penalty. As a result, the Defendant should benefit from the lesser penalty pursuant to the criminal savings statute.

The Defendant, Riley Christopher Wilburn, was convicted of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, by a Giles County Circuit Court jury. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2020). The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with thirty days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the basis that the indictment was fatally flawed because it alleged two offenses in a single count. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Lashawn Shannon, appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of nine years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I agree with the majority’s opinion that based upon the current status of caselaw, the indictment was not duplicitous and the resulting verdict did not violate the Defendant’s right to a unanimous jury. However, I write separately to emphasize that while the language in the indictment and the resulting verdict were not unconstitutional, the practice employed by the State in drafting the indictment and by the trial court in failing to provide an enhanced unanimity instruction also is not advisable.

Defendant-Appellant, Quinton Devon Perry, entered guilty pleas to eighteen counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and six counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor where the number of exploitive materials exceeded twenty-five, a Class B felony under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-17-1004(a)(1) and (2).  The trial court ordered partial consecutive sentencing and imposed an effective sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment.  In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in applying certain enhancement factors and in imposing partial consecutive sentencing.  Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Aggrieved of his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated kidnapping, assault, domestic assault, and interfering with an emergency call, the defendant, Jay W. Edwards, appeals. The defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized following his arrest, the propriety of the jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but remand the case for the entry of corrected judgment forms reflecting the merger of the defendant’s convictions in Counts 4, 5, 6, and 8.

An inmate petitioned for a common law writ of certiorari after the Tennessee Board of Parole denied him parole. The trial court dismissed the petition. In this appeal, the inmate argues that the Board’s action was illegal and arbitrary and that the rules and procedures in place at the time of his crimes should have governed his parole. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his son. The trial court found grounds for termination based on persistent conditions and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody or financial responsibility. It also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the child. We reverse the trial court’s finding of persistent conditions but otherwise affirm the termination of parental rights and remand.

In this health care liability action, an initial jury trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. Prior to the second jury trial, the trial court determined that the trial should be bifurcated such that the first phase would address only the applicable standard of care and whether the defendants deviated therefrom, and the second phase would address causation. Following completion of the standard of care phase, the jury again ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff filed a second motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this consolidated appeal, the Petitioner, Robert Jason Burdick, appeals the denial of his two post-conviction petitions and dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. With regard to his post-conviction petitions, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to challenge the trial court’s enhancement of his sentence and failure to file a motion to suppress the State’s warrantless attachment of a GPS tracking device to his vehicle. With regard to the petition for writ of error coram nobis, the Petitioner argues that the coram nobis court erred in summarily dismissing his petition and that he is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm the judgments of the lower court.      

This case arises from a defamation and false light lawsuit filed in the General Sessions Court for Wilson County (the “general sessions court”). The action was dismissed pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (the “TPPA”) and the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Circuit Court for Wilson County (the “circuit court”). After concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the circuit court transferred the case to this Court. On appeal, the parties dispute whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and the defendant argues that the ruling of the general sessions court should be affirmed. We conclude that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide this appeal and, discerning no error, we affirm the decision of the general sessions court dismissing the plaintiffs’ legal action pursuant to the TPPA. 

This is a detainer action concerning real property owned by the decedent and sold at a trustee’s sale. The trial court granted possession of the property to the purchaser. We now affirm the decision on appeal.

This appeal concerns a foreclosure sale of the plaintiff’s property. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s action alleging, in part, that the action violated the statute of limitations. In response, the plaintiff alleged that his action was timely due to equitable estoppel. The Trial Court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants. Taking the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint as true, the plaintiff pled sufficient facts in his complaint to support a claim of equitable estoppel for purposes of the statute of limitations. Therefore, we hold that the Trial Court erred by granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6).

The Defendants, Glenn Brown and Thomas Byrd, were jointly tried before a Knox County Criminal Court jury on a number of drug and gun-related offenses. At the conclusion of the trial, both Defendants were convicted of possession with the intent to sell/deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, possession with the intent to sell/deliver a controlled substance analogue, and possession of marijuana. Defendant Brown was alone convicted of the various gun-related charges, including employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony having been previously convicted of a felony. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant Byrd challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his felony convictions and argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his failure to contest the forfeiture of the large amount of cash seized from him. Defendant Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his felony drug and employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony convictions and argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of the traffic stop and in issuing inconsistent oral and written jury instructions that prevented unanimity of the verdicts. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this Rule 10 extraordinary appeal, the plaintiff seeks review of the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial on the basis of an improper comment made during closing arguments, despite the fact that a curative instruction was given. Having reviewed all of the grounds asserted in support of the motion for new trial, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion.

The Defendant, Demetrie Darnell Owens, was convicted by a Marshall County Circuit Court jury of two counts of simple possession of cocaine, Class A misdemeanors; possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school or park with intent to sell, a Class B felony; attempted possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class C felony; two counts of simple possession of Xanax, Class A misdemeanors; two counts of simple possession of methamphetamine, Class A misdemeanors; simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and simple possession of Suboxone, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to an effective term of twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing a State’s witness to testify concerning statements and text messages made by an unavailable witness; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (3) the trial court’s instruction that two individuals were accomplices as a matter of law amounted to a comment on the proof; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.   

The Defendant, Javaris Wilson, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and second degree murder under alternate theories of guilt for the same killing. The second degree murder conviction was merged into the first degree murder conviction, for which the Defendant received a life sentence. The sole issue the Defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Steven Dare Steelman, Jr., appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s order dismissing his petition for
post-conviction relief as untimely. The Petitioner’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 22 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that counsel’s motion is well-taken and, in accordance with Rule 22(F), affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant, Joshua Williams, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated burglary, four counts of attempted first degree murder, twelve counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, four counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm and was given a total effective sentence of sixty-eight years. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of attempted first degree murder. After thorough review, we disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.