APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal arises from a motion filed by Brian Coblentz (“Employee”) to compel Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (“Employer”) to provide medical treatment under the terms of a consent order previously entered by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Employee’s motion. Employee has appealed, and 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.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Tarik Deshawn Newman, for one count each of aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury, and theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000.  Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of nineteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility.  On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; and (5) that the sentences were excessive.  Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Curtis O. Shelton, Jr., was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate burglary, felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate theft, especially aggravated burglary, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated kidnapping, and seven counts of attempted aggravated robbery.  The trial court merged the felony murder convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life plus twenty years.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statement, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the felony murder convictions, and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing.  We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Frank E. Small, was convicted in 2016, after a jury trial, of robbery and home improvement fraud. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Frank E. Small, No. E2017-01266-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 2383033, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 13, 2018). Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Jerry Carter, Sr., appeals from his jury convictions for three counts of rape of a child, three counts of incest, three counts of soliciting the sexual exploitation of a minor, and one count of child abuse and his resulting sentence of 168 years, 11 months, and 29 days. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred when it ruled that the Defendant’s prior 2003 convictions for statutory rape and sexual battery were relevant and admissible; (2) the trial court’s rulings regarding the defense’s ability to cross-examine witnesses impermissibly restricted the Defendant’s right to put on a defense; (3) the trial court erred when it characterized the text messages between the Defendant and one of the victims as a confession or admission against interest and gave the jury the corresponding instruction; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors entitle him to a new trial. Though we do not find that any of the issues raised by the Defendant entitle him to relief, we remand this case due to errors with the judgment forms—there was no judgment form entered for Count 8 (aggravated sexual battery), which was dismissed, and the trial court’s imposed sentences of twelve years for both Counts 9 and 10, but the judgment forms incorrectly reflect sentences of eight years. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.

This case involves a same-sex divorce and the resultant child custody issues regarding two children born during the marriage through artificial insemination. The sperm donor intervened in the divorce proceeding requesting the court establish him as the children’s legal father and award him parenting time. The trial court denied his request to be named the children’s legal father based on its interpretation and application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-3-306, Tennessee’s artificial insemination statute. The sperm donor appeals, challenging the court’s refusal to name him as a parent or award him visitation. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

When negotiations over the sale of a boat broke down, the prospective seller and buyer sued each other. Before their claims came to trial, the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims without prejudice and to try mediation. The agreement provided that, if mediation failed, claims must be refiled within one year of the effective date of the agreement. The buyer refiled his claims against the seller just over one year after the effective date of the agreement but within one year of the dismissal of the original case. The trial court granted the seller’s motion to dismiss, concluding the buyer’s claims were time-barred under the parties’ agreement. We affirm. 

Petitioner, Shaun Rondale Cross, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell twenty-six grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced to twenty-five years as a Range III, persistent offender. After an unsuccessful post-conviction petition, Petitioner filed a second post-conviction petition along with an untimely petition for writ of error coram nobis based on a claim of newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Following an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the motion to reopen post-conviction and denied the error coram nobis petition. On appeal, Petitioner claims the coram nobis court erred by denying him error coram nobis relief. Following review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Petitioner, Calvin Banks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and being a convicted felon in possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence. Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Calvin Scott, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The Appellant also contends that the trial court had jurisdiction to address an issue regarding his pretrial jail credits and that the trial court should have recused itself from his case. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant was a firefighter and paramedic and was terminated from his employment after he was involved in a physical altercation at a political rally. After a hearing, the Board upheld his termination. The appellant then sought judicial review in chancery court. After reviewing the administrative record, the chancery court likewise upheld termination. On appeal, this Court concluded that the decision upholding the appellant’s termination should be reversed due to a violation of his due process rights. The Tennessee Supreme Court found no due process violation and reversed the decision of this Court, remanding for consideration of alternative arguments raised by the appellant that were deemed pretermitted in our previous opinion. Having carefully considered the appellant’s alternative arguments, we affirm the chancery court’s rulings on some issues but ultimately must vacate in part the decision upholding termination and remand for further proceedings before the Board.

Tennessee’s Department of Health (“TDH” or “the Department”) sought reciprocal revocation of a registered nurse’s Tennessee license after her registered nurse license was revoked in California.  After a hearing on the matter, which the nurse did not attend, the Tennessee Board of Nursing (“Board”) entered a default judgment against the nurse and revoked her Tennessee license.  The nurse appealed to the chancery court and brought an action for damages against the Board.  The chancery court affirmed the Board’s decision and dismissed the nurse’s action for damages.  The nurse then appealed to this Court. We affirm the chancery court in all respects.

Following a jury trial, Damian McGlown, Defendant, was convicted of one count of aggravated rape for “unlawfully, knowingly, or recklessly sexually penetrat[ing] and caus[ing] bodily injury” to his adult niece, and he was sentenced to seventeen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant claims that the evidence failed to show that Defendant caused bodily injury to the victim and, therefore, was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

Petitioner, Bert Newby, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court improperly determined that his petition was time-barred and that he presented newly discovered evidence of a witness’s recanted testimony, which may have resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The Petitioner, William Casey, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for first degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of aggravated rape for offenses that occurred in 1979 and 1980. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal, that the
post-conviction court erred in failing to rule upon his motion in limine seeking to exclude the State from presenting any evidence protected by attorney-client privilege, and that the Petitioner is entitled to relief due to cumulative error. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Ethan Alexander Self, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first-degree premeditated murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The Defendant, Juan LaSean Perry, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he challenged his twenty-five-year sentence resulting from his second degree murder conviction in 2005. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal involves a contract issue concerning a purported addendum to a land purchase and sale agreement. The trial court granted the seller’s motion for summary judgment holding that there was no mutual assent on at least one material term: whether the modification would include a new date-certain deadline for the diligence period or be openended. The buyer appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Stevie Michael Irwin, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In this divorce case, Richard E. Davis, Jr. (“Husband”) challenges the trial court’s division of the marital estate, the award of spousal support and attorney’s fees to Kacy Collums Davis (“Wife”), and the trial court’s designation of Wife as primary residential parent. Wife asserts that the trial court erred in its division of the marital estate, in declining to award her 100% of her attorney’s fees, in denying her motion to disqualify the guardian ad litem, in awarding the parties equal parenting time, and in calculating Husband’s income for child support purposes. We modify the division of the marital estate (1) to correct a miscalculation, agreed by the parties to have been a clerical error in the trial court’s order, counting Wife’s retirement account twice; and (2) to reflect that Wife shall be responsible for the debt for her first attorney’s fees, which is secured by a lien on the marital residence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

Bryant Christopher Mitchell, Defendant, appeals from his conviction of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a complete review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A tenured teacher appealed his dismissal for unprofessional conduct and insubordination. He contended that the decision of the Board of Education lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The teacher also contended that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. The trial court affirmed the Board’s decision. Upon review, we conclude that the teacher received pre-termination notice of the charges and evidence against him. And the Board complied with the procedural framework in the Tenure Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-512 (2020). The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that the teacher was guilty of unprofessional conduct and insubordination. We further conclude that the teacher failed to establish that the Board’s decision was arbitrary or in violation of statutory or constitutional rights. So we affirm.

Defendant, Jaquarius D. Carpenter, was convicted by a jury of possession with the intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, possession with the intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective eighteen-year sentence, as a Range II multiple offender, to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for possession with the intent to sell or deliver cocaine and simple possession of marijuana. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Knox County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Kenneth Barnett, for ten counts of aggravated burglary with intent to commit theft, ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft, ten counts of theft, and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed the ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant of six counts of aggravated burglary, six counts of theft, and both counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, for which the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is the second action in which the petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”), seeks good sentence credits and prisoner performance credits. The trial court dismissed the present action, filed in 2019, in accordance with Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, determining that res judicata barred the suit. The decision was based on the following findings: the petitioner did not assert that the Davidson County Chancery Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in the prior action, filed in 2005, “the same parties were involved in both . . . suit[s],” both cases “arose out of the same transaction or series of connected transactions” between the same parties, and “the [prior] suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits . . . .” We affirm.