APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a car accident involving an employee of the State of Tennessee, Irene Howard (“Claimant”) sought damages against the State based on alleged injuries arising from the accident. The claim was denied by the Division of Claims and Risk Management (the “DCRM”), and Claimant thereafter appealed to the Claims Commission (the “Commission”). Because Claimant failed to appeal the DCRM’s decision within ninety days, however, the Commission concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the appeal. We affirm.

The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to his child on the grounds of (1) persistence of conditions, (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility, (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and (4) abandonment by wanton disregard. The trial court also found that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Although we reverse three of the termination grounds, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports a finding of abandonment by wanton disregard. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that the termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

The Petitioner, James Black, was convicted of two counts each of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder and was sentenced to a concurrent life sentence by the trial court. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from trial counsel’s legal use of prescribed opioids during his trial, specifically asserting that 1) the prescribed opioids caused him to perform deficiently at trial; 2) that trial counsel’s offering of the Petitioner’s criminal history tainted the jury; and 3) that trial counsel’s use of prescribed opioids combined with his severe back pain created a conflict of interest. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This appeal involves a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff. After two hearings, the trial court entered an order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court’s refusal to enforce a forum selection clause contained in a stock bonus transfer agreement in this action arising out of the termination of the plaintiff’s employment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, citing the forum selection clause, which specified New York as the sole venue for litigating claims. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The defendants appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Zachary Gale Rattler, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was deprived of a fair and impartial jury and received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of one of the defendants involved in the underlying case. Because there is no written order evidencing how the operative claims against the subject defendant were resolved, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion.

Defendants, Kavasia S. Bonds and Charles Allen Jones, along with a co-defendant Brian Davis, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault while acting in concert with two or more other persons. Following a jury trial, Defendants Bonds and Jones were convicted as charged, and the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to Defendant Davis. For their convictions, Defendant Bonds was sentenced to 16 years’ incarceration, and Defendant Jones was sentenced to 14 years. In this appeal as of right, Defendants Bonds and Jones both challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Defendant Bonds also asserts that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim’s eye and that the prosecutor improperly commented on Defendant Bonds’ silence at trial during closing arguments. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this post-divorce, child custody case, Appellant/Father filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan, seeking equal parenting time. Appellee/Mother opposed the petition. The trial court held that there had been a material change of circumstance and awarded Father additional parenting time, but not equal parenting time. On appeal, Father asserts that the trial court failed to consider the statutory best interest factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). Although we leave undisturbed the portion of the trial court’s order concerning a material change of circumstance, the trial court’s failure to make best interest findings in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 precludes any meaningful appellate review of that question. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for entry of an order that includes the required findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Relying on an inapplicable statute, the plaintiff asked the court to order a limited liability company to produce records for his inspection.  Claiming that the plaintiff had never been a member, the LLC denied that he was entitled to access its records.  After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff was a member and entitled to inspect and copy the records.  So the court ordered the LLC to allow the inspection and to pay the plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred in filing suit.  The evidence does not preponderate against the court’s finding that the plaintiff was a member at formation of the LLC.  But because the relief was sought under an inapplicable statute, we vacate the inspection order and the award of attorney’s fees. 

Members of a nonprofit corporation sought to compel production of election records from the election of the corporation’s board of directors. The trial court ordered production of the records pursuant to a protective order. This Court granted the Rule 10 appeal to determine whether production of the election ballots is required under the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act, whether the members have a privacy right with respect to their votes, and whether the trial court’s protective order protects that privacy right. We hold that production of the ballots is required under the statute, members have a limited privacy right with respect to their votes, and the protective order protects that right.

Defendant, Gabriel Storm Davis, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of aggravated child neglect.  The trial court imposed an effective twenty-two-year sentence, as a Range I standard offender, to be served at 100 percent, by operation of law, in the Department of Correction.  On appeal, Defendant argues: that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the State’s election of offenses was insufficient to ensure a unanimous verdict; and that the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s forensic interview into evidence.  Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This action arises from a snowboarding accident at Defendant Ober Gatlinburg’s ski resort. Plaintiff Karla Chase, attempting to avoid a collision with another skier, crashed face-first into a 4x4 post supporting a warning fence marking the edge of the slope’s navigable terrain. She alleged that Defendant negligently created an unreasonably dangerous condition by not using rounded and/or padded fence posts. The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant not at fault. After returning the verdict form, one of the jurors requested and was allowed to read a statement saying, “we find the defendant not guilty. We, the jury, are in one accord that Ober and the ski industry should look into using materials for posts with rounded corners or more padding.” Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, but died before the hearing and the trial court’s ruling denying the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of appeal in the deceased Plaintiff’s name. We hold that Plaintiff’s personal representative may be substituted for her on appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 19(a) even though no motion for substitution was made, because Defendant did not request the trial court to dismiss the action pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25.01. We affirm the trial court’s judgment approving the jury verdict in favor of Defendant.

This case involves a dispute over a parcel of real property. The appellant filed suit alleging fraudulent conveyance of the property. The trial court granted a judgment in favor of the appellee, finding that the appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish fraud, undue influence, or lack of capacity. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s decision. Additionally, we award the appellee her attorney’s fees on appeal.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s entry of a permanent parenting plan involving one minor child. The trial court named the father primary residential parent of the minor child and entered a parenting plan awarding equal co-parenting time and ordering the child’s enrollment in the father’s school of choice. The mother appealed. Upon our review, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for entry of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate appellate review.

The Petitioner, Lemaricus Davidson, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of numerous offenses against the two victims, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, including multiple counts of first degree felony and premeditated murder, and the jury imposed sentences of death for each murder conviction. After this court and our supreme court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, he filed post-conviction and coram nobis petitions, seeking relief from those first degree murder convictions and death sentences. The post-conviction court found that trial counsel were deficient for not requesting a change of venue but that no prejudice resulted from trial counsel’s deficient performance and denied relief. The coram nobis court also denied relief. In this consolidated appeal, the Petitioner raises various issues, including that the post-conviction court erred by denying his request for expert services; that the post-conviction court erred by determining that a codefendant’s anticipated testimony at another codefendant’s upcoming trial was not relevant to the Petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief; that trial counsel were ineffective because they failed to request an out-of-county jury, improperly handled voir dire, and failed to raise certain issues on direct appeal of his convictions; and that he is entitled to coram nobis relief because a codefendant’s new testimony may have led to a different verdict as to the first degree premeditated murders of the victims. Based upon our review of the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the post-conviction court erroneously determined that a codefendant’s anticipated testimony at another codefendant’s upcoming trial was not relevant to the Petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief because the testimony would have invalidated one of the four aggravating circumstances found by the jury to impose the Petitioner’s death sentence for Mr. Newsom. However, we also conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the post-conviction court that trial counsel were deficient for not requesting a change of venue and that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficient performance. Therefore, we affirm the denials of post-conviction and coram nobis relief.

The Petitioner, Jarus Smith, appeals as of right from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for facilitation of attempted second degree murder, possession of contraband in a penal institution, and two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that (1) he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional right to a twelve-person jury, and (2) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel relative to counsel’s advice about proceeding with an eleven-person jury. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Darryl Robinson, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for aggravated robbery and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-402, -17-1307(c)(1). On appeal, the Petitioner submits that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to (1) trial counsel’s failure to object to and preserve for appeal references by a witness identifying the Petitioner at trial by his prejudicial nickname “Trigger Man”; and (2) trial counsel’s failure to object during closing argument to the State’s use of a “pink elephant” analogy, as well as the failure to preserve the issue in the motion for new trial. In addition, the Petitioner raises a stand-alone allegation of prosecutorial misconduct based upon the State’s closing argument. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we are constrained to agree with the Petitioner that the post-conviction court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable appellate review of all his claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion

Defendant, Elvin Portillo, entered into an agreement whereby he pled guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication, leaving the scene of an accident with death and reckless endangerment.  Four remaining counts were dismissed.  In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court held a sentencing hearing to determine the length and service manner of Defendant’s sentences.  After a sentencing hearing, Defendant received an effective sentence of 16 years.  In this appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing.  Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgments of the trial court.  However, because the record does not contain judgment forms for the remaining counts, if these judgments do not exist, we remand to the trial court for entry of judgment forms to reflect dismissal of those counts. 

This case involves an action filed by homeowners against their contractor for breach of contract regarding the installation of a swimming pool.  The general sessions court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the circuit court which also entered judgment for the plaintiffs.  The defendant appeals.  We affirm.

This action was initiated by the mother’s filing of a petition for the return of custody of her minor child. The trial court granted the petition. The maternal grandmother moved to set aside the judgment. The court denied the motion by order and later entered an amended order, correcting errors. The mother appeals the final order. We dismiss the appeal.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to establish a suitable home; (2) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the child; and (5) a present mental condition affecting the mother’s ability to adequately parent. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court.

The Petitioner, Donald Jones, was found guilty by a jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary, and he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty years. After this court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions on direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to locate and interview an alibi witness and failed to request an instruction on accomplice testimony. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.