APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves a challenge to a decision to non-renew the employment of a non-tenured teacher. The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of her one-year contract of employment.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

A bank brought an action against a borrower for failure to repay a promissory note.  The borrower asserted that the bank failed to mitigate its damages by failing to sell the shares of stock it held as collateral to pay off the loan at a time when the stock’s value was high.  After a bench trial, the trial court granted judgment in favor of the bank, holding that the parol evidence rule prevented consideration of his purported oral modification of the parties’ agreement. Borrower appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Misty Rose Brown, acting pro se, was convicted of one count of child abuse and neglect and one count of facilitation of rape of a child following a trial.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years for the facilitation conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the child abuse and neglect conviction, to be served concurrently.  The Defendant, again acting pro se, appeals her convictions and argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This action involves a contractual dispute over the sale of a 2010 Honda Civic that a pro se appellant purchased from a used car dealer.  The appellant’s brief significantly fails to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.  Accordingly, we find that any issues on appeal are waived.  We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant appeals from various orders entered against him in two consolidated cases. Because we lack subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal

This appeal arises from a conservatorship case in which the chancery court authorized the attorneys ad litem for the ward of the conservatorship to enter into a compromise and settlement regarding a dispute among the ward and his four siblings over their deceased father’s estate. The sole issue on appeal is whether the Chancellor abused his discretion in finding the settlement was in the ward’s best interest. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

A Wilson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Rashad Dewayne Seay, Jr., of two counts of the sale of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of eighteen years for each offense.  The Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the court summarily dismissed as untimely.  On appeal, we reversed the summary dismissal.  Rashad Dewayne Seay, Jr. v. State, No. M2017-01128-CCA-R3-PC, 2018 WL 3203442, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 29, 2018), no perm. app. filed.  On remand, the post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing after which it filed a written order denying the Petitioner relief.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure the Petitioner was present during the jury instructions, failing to ensure that the jury was properly instructed, failing to adequately investigate and prepare an identification expert, and failing to inform the Petitioner of the consequences of withdrawing his direct appeal.  After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This appeal involves the parental rights of a mother, Mary K. (“Mother”), to her minor children, Kailey A., Abigail K., Isaiah K., and Izzabella K. (collectively, “the Children”). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the statutory ground of severe child abuse committed against the Children. The Greene County Juvenile Court (“the Juvenile Court”) found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had severely abused the Children and that it was in the Children’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellant filed this products liability action more than 10 years after undergoing a total hip replacement using Appellee's hip implant system. The trial court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss on the ground that Appellant's lawsuit fell outside the 10-year statute of repose and any exceptions thereto. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is the third appeal arising from a commercial construction project. Most recently, the case went to trial before a jury, which awarded the plaintiff subcontractor $1,729,122.46 in compensatory damages under four separate theories and $3,900,000.00 in punitive damages. The trial court further awarded the plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest and attorney’s fees and costs. We conclude the economic loss rule is applicable to construction contracts negotiated between sophisticated commercial entities and that fraud is not an exception under the particular circumstances of this case. Because punitive damages and interest are not authorized under the parties’ agreement, those damages are reversed. The compensatory damages of $1,729,122.46 awarded for breach of contract are affirmed. The award of attorney’s fees incurred at trial are vacated for a determination of the attorney’s fees incurred in obtaining the compensatory damages award. No attorney’s fees are awarded on appeal. We therefore reverse in part, affirm in part, and vacate in part.

The Petitioner, Melvin R. King, III, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions and effective life sentence for first degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, reckless aggravated assault, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated animal cruelty. The Petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to pursue intoxication as a defense; (2) failing to file a motion to suppress the Petitioner’s police statement because he was intoxicated when he gave it; (3) failing to adequately cross-examine a victim-witness who tampered with evidence at the crime scene and who gave an inconsistent prior statement; (4) failing to discuss the evidence tampering and inconsistent statement in closing argument; and (5) failing to poll the jurors to ensure they were not influenced by an improper communication from one of the jurors to the District Attorney General. In addition, the Petitioner argues that the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Clarence E. McCaleb, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction DNA analysis. The petition sought DNA testing of a fork found on the victim’s bedroom floor. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that DNA analysis of the fork would result in a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if DNA profiles inconsistent with the Petitioner’s and the victim’s were discovered. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

Following the establishment of paternity, a father petitioned to change his child's surname. The trial court denied the petition. The trial court's order does not contain findings as to whether the name change is in the child's best interests. Therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand.

The trial court terminated a mother and father’s parental rights to their children on the grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility; (3) persistence of conditions; and (4) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. The trial court also ruled that the termination ground of abandonment by failure to visit had been proven against the father. The trial court further found that termination of the mother and father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports these grounds for termination. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that the termination of the mother and father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children.

This is the second appeal of this case. After remand from the first appeal, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to reopen discovery concerning Appellant’s counterclaim, wherein he asserted that the guaranty he signed was void and unenforceable. In the first appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s counterclaim, finding that the disputed guaranty was, in fact, valid. As such, we conclude that the trial court did not err in precluding further discovery on the dismissed counterclaim. We grant Appellee’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs for frivolous appeal, and remand the case for determination of Appellee’s reasonable appellate attorney’s fees and costs and entry of judgment on same.

Appellant’s brief in this case fails to substantially comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.

The Defendant, James David Duncan, was convicted by a Morgan County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (Supp. 2017) (subsequently amended) (second degree murder), 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt), 39-13-102(a)(l)(A)(i) (Supp. 2017) (subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to sixteen years for attempted second degree murder and to eight years for aggravated assault, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to an Anderson County conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that ( 1) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during voir dire, opening statement, and closing argument, (2) he is entitled to plain error relief because the trial court failed to conduct a hearing pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) regarding prior bad act evidence, (3) the court erroneously instructed the jury, and (4) cumulative trial errors require relief. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, John Foxx, was convicted following a jury trial of sale of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, delivery of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, and simple possession. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve an effective fifteen-year sentence after application of the criminal street gang enhancement statute. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in applying the criminal street gang enhancement statute because the statute is unconstitutional and because the evidence was insufficient to support application of the criminal street gang enhancement statute. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jayson Bryant Collier, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a school, possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, theft of property valued at five hundred dollars or less, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, driving on a revoked license, and speeding.  On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution, and that his sentence is illegal under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.  After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.    

The Petitioner, Timothy A. Baxter, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.  

Gary Wayne Garrett filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion seeking correction of clerical errors in his judgments of conviction.  Mr. Garrett claimed that he was entitled to pretrial jail credit on various counts, several of which were ordered to be served consecutively.  The trial court issued a comprehensive written order finding that the judgments correctly awarded pretrial jail credit and dismissed the motion.  We determine that this appeal is frivolous and affirm the dismissal of the motion.

In this divorce case, a father appeals the trial court’s reduction of his parenting time after the parties had co-parented equally by agreement, and then nearly equally under a temporary court order. He also appeals the award of alimony. We reverse the residential parenting schedule portion of the parenting plan entered by the trial court and remand for the imposition of a plan that better maximizes both parents’ time with the child. Regarding alimony, because the trial court did not make the required findings, its judgment on that issue is vacated.

In this negligent misrepresentation case, an insured alleges that her insurance agent made misrepresentations about the contents of an agreement she authorized her husband to sign on her behalf. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance agent, finding that the insured was “responsible for what she signs or what she has her agent to sign.” Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court.

The petitioner, Vernell Evans, appeals the denial of his Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting his sentences are illegal because the trial court incorrectly imposed 100% service requirements for each sentence.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Andrea Gonzalez Martinez, pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a handgun, and the trial court imposed a sentence of sixteen years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing.  After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.