APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

John B. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child, Braylee B. (“the Child”). In September 2019, Brook W. (“Mother”) and Charles W. (“Stepfather”) filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights in the Scott County Chancery Court (“Trial Court”). Father filed a motion to compel discovery and continue the trial, which was denied by the Trial Court. Following a trial, the Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights on two grounds of abandonment due to Father’s failure to support the Child and his wanton disregard for the Child’s welfare. The Trial Court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Anthony Jackson, of attempted voluntary manslaughter, employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of forty-two years. This court affirmed his convictions and sentence on appeal. State v. Anthony Jackson, No. W2015-01403-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 4147419 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Aug. 2, 2016), no perm. app. filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for
post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. Upon review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Anwar Ghazali, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(a)(1). On appeal, the Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction based on the following: (1) the substantial two-day delay between the time of the alleged incident and the discovery of the body; (2) the State’s failure to establish that the victim was missing during the two days; (3) and a lack of evidence proving the Defendant shot and killed the victim when the alleged incident occurred in an area where shootings were common. Following our review, we affirm.

Appellant/Wife filed a petition for civil contempt against Appellee/Husband alleging that Husband failed to make payments on a debt owed to Wife as required under the parties’ Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”). The trial court: (1) held that the MDA was ambiguous; (2) entered judgment for Wife in the amount of $14,636.66; (3) held that Husband was not in contempt of the MDA; and (4) denied Wife attorney’s fees and costs under the MDA. We conclude that the MDA was not ambiguous and that the trial court erred in allowing parol evidence of payments Husband allegedly made prior to executing the MDA. Accordingly, we: (1) reverse the trial court’s finding that the MDA is ambiguous; (2) reverse and modify the trial court’s entry of judgment for Wife in the amount of $14,636.66; (3) vacate the trial court’s finding that Husband was not in contempt; and (4) reverse the trial court’s denial of Wife’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. We remand the case for: (1) entry of judgment in favor of Wife in the amount of $82,000.00 plus post-judgment interest; (2) reconsideration of the question of Husband’s contempt; and (3) calculation of Wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the litigation, including this appeal, and entry of judgment on same.

Aggrieved of her Sullivan County Criminal Court jury conviction of making a false report, see T.C.A. § 39-16-502, the defendant, Kelly Brooke Frye, appeals. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the propriety of the sentence originally imposed as well as the trial court’s denial of her motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, to reduce her sentence. She also alleges that she was deprived of her constitutional rights to a public trial, to trial by an impartial jury, and to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A property development company brought suit against a property owner for specific performance to enforce an option agreement entered into between the company and the property owner.  The trial court held that the option agreement was enforceable and awarded specific performance and damages to the development company.  We have concluded that the option agreement is not sufficiently definite with respect to the option price and, therefore, is not an enforceable contract.  We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings regarding the development company’s alternative cause of action for unjust enrichment.

Defendant, Douglas E. Alvey, was indicted by the Rhea County Grand Jury for first degree premeditated murder, vehicular homicide, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury or death. By motion of the State, the trial court dismissed the charge of vehicular homicide. A jury convicted Defendant as charged on the remaining counts, and the trial court imposed a life sentence for Defendant’s first degree murder conviction and a sentence of two years, to be served concurrently, for his leaving the scene of an accident conviction. Defendant appeals his first degree murder conviction, asserting that the evidence at trial of premeditation was not sufficient to support his conviction. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02 and denial of a motion to alter or amend under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59. The court dismissed the complaint after finding the plaintiffs consistently violated court orders and unnecessarily delayed litigation by, inter alia, violating discovery and procedural deadlines. The plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that the trial court already excused any past violations and their latest violations were due to circumstances outside of the plaintiffs’ control. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. We have determined that the court’s basis for dismissing the case is properly supported by evidence in the record, the court identified and applied the appropriate legal principles, and its decision was within the range of acceptable alternatives dispositions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal arises from a financial dispute between a drug testing laboratory, H & H Testing, Inc. (“H & H Testing” or “H & H”), and Wesley Young, for whom H & H performed 64 qualitative drug screens while Mr. Young was a client of Transcend Recovery Community (“Transcend”), which operates recovery communities nationwide. Upon commencing treatment for drug addiction at Transcend, Mr. Young agreed to adhere to treatment guidelines that included abstaining from drugs and alcohol and submitting to a rigorous drug screening protocol. Pursuant to this protocol, Transcend forwarded 64 of Mr. Young’s random urine samples to H & H Testing for comprehensive laboratory testing. After H & H performed each drug screen, it submitted a claim to Mr. Young’s health insurance provider, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (“BlueCross” or “BCBST”). BlueCross approved each and every claim submitted by H & H Testing and remitted payment for the services rendered by H & H in the aggregate of $85,837.11. Because H & H Testing was an out-of-network provider, BlueCross remitted payment for the services rendered by H & H to its insured, Mr. Young, expecting he would forward the proceeds to H & H. Instead of remitting the funds to H & H Testing, Mr. Young entrusted the money to his parents, but they did not forward the proceeds to H & H. When H & H Testing demanded payment, Mr. Young and his parents commenced this action to declare the rights of the parties to the funds. They contended that H & H Testing was not entitled to the insurance proceeds because Mr. Young did not have a contract with H & H Testing, its services were not medically necessary, and the charges were exorbitant. H & H Testing filed an answer and counterclaims for breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Following a hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of H & H Testing without identifying the claims upon which the judgment was granted and imposed a constructive trust over the insurance proceeds. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of H & H Testing based on its claims of conversion and unjust enrichment. But we vacate the trial court’s decision to impose a constructive trust over the proceeds because the parties failed to raise the issue in any of the pleadings.

A Lawrence County jury convicted the Defendant, Stephen L. Purcell, Jr., of felony reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, auto burglary, and theft of property valued at more than $10,000. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and especially aggravated kidnapping. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

This is an appeal from a termination of parental rights proceeding. Although the trial court found that certain grounds for termination were established against the children’s father, it determined that there was insufficient proof that termination was in the children’s best interests. On appeal, the guardian ad litem and prospective adoptive parents challenge the trial court’s best interests determination, as well as the trial court’s failure to conclude that other grounds for termination were established. Our review of the record reveals that no grounds for termination were properly found by the trial court, and we therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition to terminate on this basis.

This appeal concerns the potential personal liability of the owner of a corporation, which was engaged as the contractor in a multi-million-dollar construction project. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the construction company’s owner, determining that the owner could not be held personally liable for the corporation’s alleged violations of either the Tennessee Contractors Licensing Act, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the Tennessee Trust Fund Statute, or the Prompt Pay Act. The plaintiff has appealed. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the corporation’s owner.

The defendant, Steven Michael Simpson, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of first degree felony murder, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Bradley Robinson, appeals his Knox County convictions for facilitation of first degree felony murder and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty-seven years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Howard Burnett, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his conviction of first degree murder, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Because the petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s representation, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Marcus Thurman Wade, filed for post-conviction relief from his two convictions of first degree murder and one conviction of especially aggravated robbery, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) advising the Petitioner not to testify; (2) failing to request a psychological evaluation of the Petitioner; (3) failing to introduce at the suppression hearing proof of the Petitioner’s mental capacity; (4) failing to challenge the racial composition of the jury venire; (5) failing to request funds for expert witnesses; (6) failing to investigate and review motel camera footage; and (7) failing to file a motion in limine to block evidence of the Petitioner’s drug transactions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.  

The Defendant, Andrew G. Walsh, pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful photography, and he agreed to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and judicial diversion and ordered the Defendant to register as a sex offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in making its sentencing decisions. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.  

The Defendant, Rashawn Boseman-Humes, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation with respect to his convictions for attempted possession of a Schedule I controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver and introduction of contraband into a penal facility. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in finding that he violated the terms of his probation and in ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Michael Keith Clark, was convicted at trial of possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He received an effective sentence of four years in confinement followed by eight years on community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, that the trial court violated his right to confront the State’s witness during cross-examination, and that the State improperly commented on his decision not to testify in its closing argument. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.  

This appeal concerns the termination of a father’s parental rights to his two minor children. Thomas Miller (“Petitioner”), guardian ad litem, filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Hickman County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Desia E. (“Father”) to Anari E. and Chrifayni O. (“the Children,” collectively). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on six grounds and finding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest, all by clear and convincing evidence. Father appeals, arguing Petitioner failed to meet his burden as to any of the grounds and as to best interest. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court.

The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted first-degree murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. As a result of his convictions, the defendant received an effective sentence of twenty-six years. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter and insufficient to support a finding of premeditation. Upon our thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the briefs, we affirm the jury’s verdict.

The Defendant, Vanassa Hurst, was convicted by a Claiborne County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder and second degree murder. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(2) (2019) (subsequently amended), 39-13-210(a)(1) (2014) (subsequently amended). The trial court imposed a life sentence for first degree murder, ordered a sentence of nineteen years for second degree murder, and merged the second degree murder conviction into the first degree murder conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress her pretrial statements and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ronald Curry, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a thorough review of the briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we conclude that the petitioner failed to state a colorable claim and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Frankie Joe Alfred Benton, appeals from the Hawkins County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2013 convictions upon his guilty pleas to nine drug offenses, for which he received an effective nine-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the
post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Marterious O’Neal, of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. The defendant also contends the trial court erred in sentencing him as a Range II offender. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but remand for imposition of sentences as a Range I, standard offender.