APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Carroll County jury convicted the Defendant, Elijah Paul Williams, of intentionally or knowingly failing to pay child support, and the trial court sentenced him to six months, ninety days of which the Defendant was to serve in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that he was denied due process of law. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The petitioner, Demetrice A. Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2017
guilty-pleaded convictions of possession of a handgun after having been convicted of a felony and failure to appear, alleging that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The father of two children appeals the termination of his parental rights, contending the petitioner failed to prove a ground for termination or that termination was in the children’s best interests by clear and convincing evidence. In 2018, the juvenile court placed the children in foster care and declared them dependent and neglected upon the petition of the Department of Children’s Services. The court then ratified a permanency plan that had several requirements for the father, including submitting to and passing random drug screens, resolving pending legal issues, and avoiding new criminal charges. Over the next two years, the father only completed some of the action steps and incurred new criminal charges for which he was incarcerated. In September 2019, the Department filed a petition to terminate the father’s rights on the grounds of abandonment by exhibiting a wanton disregard for the children’s welfare and by failure to visit, failure to comply with the permanency plan, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of and financial responsibility for the children. After the final hearing, the court found that the Department proved all four grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests. This appeal followed. Following a detailed review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s findings in all respects and affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

Petitioner, Michael F. Maraschiello, was convicted of first degree murder, arson, possession of a shotgun with an altered serial number, and theft after a jury trial in 1997. He was sentenced to life plus five years for the convictions. Petitioner appealed and this Court affirmed the conviction. State v. Maraschiello, 88 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Over 19 years ago, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging various grounds for relief including ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner sought funding for a medical and psychological expert in 2005, and the post-conviction court denied the request. The post-conviction court granted Petitioner permission for an interlocutory appeal. This Court denied the application for permission to appeal. State v. Michael F. Maraschiello, M2007-01968-CCA-R9-CO, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 26, 2007) (order). After multiple amended petitions that included dozens of claims, the postconviction court denied relief to Petitioner in 2019. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the evidence weighs against the post-conviction’s court finding that Petitioner was not a credible witness, that he has a constitutional or statutory right to state funded experts and investigators, that the post-conviction court erred by denying Petitioner the ability to prove his claims by refusing to allow Petitioner to call sixty-nine witnesses, that the postconviction court erred when it rejected Petitioner’s claim that he clearly accepted a plea offer, and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call or impeach witnesses. After a thorough review of the very lengthy record, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

The present appeal concerns an insurance agent’s alleged negligent failure to procure excess uninsured motorist coverage in accordance with a prospective insured’s instructions. The two insured parties, a married couple, filed suit against their insurance agent and agency after they were denied coverage by the insurance carrier. The trial court found that it was undisputed that the insureds had paid the premium for the policy in effect and applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-135(b), which provides: “The payment of premium for an insurance contract, or amendment thereto, by an insured shall create a rebuttable presumption that the coverage provided has been accepted by all insureds under the contract.” The trial court determined that the insureds had failed to rebut the statutory presumption that they had accepted the provided coverage, which did not include excess uninsured motorist coverage. Therefore, the trial court granted the insurance agent’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, concluding that the rebuttable presumption does not apply to actions against an insurance agent. We granted the ensuing application for permission to appeal to address whether section 56-7-135(b) applies to create a rebuttable presumption in actions against an insurance agent for negligent failure to procure an insurance policy as directed. Considering the plain language of the statute, we conclude that it does create such a presumption. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment. 

This appeal arises from a judgment finding the defendant violated a protective order and a subsequent judgment extending the protective order for one year. Specifically, the defendant seeks to set aside these judgments based on inadequate notice. Although the defendant appeared in court for a related hearing and admits that all notices were sent to her at the proper address, she contends on appeal that, because she was a frequent traveler, she was unaware of the two hearings at issue in this appeal until after they occurred. We have determined the defendant waived the notice issue by failing to bring it to the attention of the trial court and by failing to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Additionally, we have determined the appeal was frivolous; therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 27-1-122. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make the appropriate award.

The Defendant, Jordana Jenyane Wright, pled guilty to Class E felony theft of property with an agreed-upon sentence of one year and six months of probation. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for diversion. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court, in its decision to deny diversion, failed to properly account for the Defendant’s lack of a criminal record and improperly weighed irrelevant facts, such as the Defendant’s failure to implicate any potential co-defendants and the criminal history of the Defendant’s fiancé. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Thomas McLaughlin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition alleged that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at a revocation hearing .Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Defendant, Armin Lars Begtrup, was found guilty after a jury trial of two counts of aggravated perjury. He was sentenced to three and one-half years of supervised probation. The trial court granted judicial diversion. Defendant timely filed a motion for new trial which the trial court denied. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court violated his right to a unanimous verdict and that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his convictions. After a thorough review, we dismiss the appeal because we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues.

I agree that the majority opinion is correctly decided based upon the current relevant rules and case law. I write separately because I also agree with the statement in the Defendant’s supplemental brief that The denial of access to the appellate courts where the defendant enters a plea of not guilty, is convicted at trial, and is sentenced under judicial diversion is wrong. That is the Appellant’s rubric. The defendant who maintains his innocence has no appellate recourse to correct trial errors that may have resulted in a wrongful conviction if sentenced under judicial diversion.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurance claim filed against his employer following a car accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The transferee of real property following a foreclosure sale filed a forcible entry and detainer action against the occupier. After the transferee prevailed in the general sessions court, the occupier appealed to circuit court. The transferee then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the transferee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

In this dispute over the sale of real and personal property, the buyers complain that they did not receive all the personal property described in the bill of sale and that the real property was encumbered. Their complaint asserted claims for intentional misrepresentation, breach of the covenant against encumbrances, and breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the buyers damages for breach of contract and intentional misrepresentation. Both sides appealed. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the buyers’ reliance on the misrepresentation in the warranty deed was reasonable. In all other respects, we affirm.

In this forcible entry and detainer case, REI Nation, LLC (“REI”) filed a detainer warrant against LaTasha Chanta Tennial (“Tennial”) in the General Sessions Court for Shelby County (“the General Sessions Court”) to obtain possession of certain foreclosed-upon real estate (“the Property”) it had purchased. The General Sessions Court entered judgment for REI. Tennial appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”) for trial de novo. The Circuit Court found for REI, as well. Tennial appeals to this Court. Discerning no reversible error in the Circuit Court’s judgment, we affirm.

Petitioner, Brian Pillow, was convicted by a Maury County Jury of three counts of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free zone. He received an effective sentence of twelve years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court should have granted a continuance when co-counsel was appointed. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied his petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a State appeal, filed by the State Attorney General and Reporter, from an Agreed Order (“AO”) entered between Petitioner, Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman, and the District Attorney General for Davidson County. The AO amended Petitioner’s capital sentence to life imprisonment. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings based upon the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (2016). The post-conviction court granted the motion and set the matter for a hearing. At the hearing, the parties presented to the court an AO stating that Petitioner’s sentence would be amended in exchange for his waiving and dismissing all post-conviction claims. The post-conviction court accepted the AO and subsequently entered an amended judgment of conviction. The State appealed, arguing that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to accept the AO and amend Petitioner’s sentence. Petitioner responds that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the State consented to the AO in the post-conviction court, thereby foreclosing any right to appeal. We have thoroughly considered the briefs and arguments of both parties as well as the amici curiae. We conclude that the State has a right to appeal to challenge the jurisdiction of the post-conviction court. We also conclude that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to accept the AO and to amend Petitioner’s final judgment of conviction because it did not comply with the statutory requirements for granting relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Therefore, we vacate both the AO and the amended judgment of conviction and remand this case to the post-conviction court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A city board of zoning appeals granted a variance request on September 17, 2018, and the city codes director checked a box on the variance application indicating that the request was approved.  At its next meeting, on October 15, 2018, the board approved the minutes from its September 17, 2018 meeting.  Two companies that opposed the variance filed a sworn petition for writ of certiorari on December 5, 2018, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 27-9-102, a statute providing that such actions must be filed within sixty days of the entry of the board decision.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Because we have determined that, under the facts of this case, the board’s decision was not entered until the approval of the minutes at the October 15, 2018 board meeting, we conclude that the petition for certiorari was timely filed.  We, therefore, reverse the decision of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Kevin Grammer, of aggravated robbery, theft of property over $1000, felony evading arrest, speeding, reckless driving, felony reckless endangerment, failure to exercise due care, disobeying a stop sign, and driving on a suspended license. The trial court imposed partial consecutive sentences for an effective sentence of fourteen years’ confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive terms. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it holds that the post-conviction trial court must first determine that a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief before a District Attorney General is allowed to negotiate a settlement of criminal convictions and/or sentences which are the subject of a post-conviction proceeding.  The majority opinion prohibits the 31 District Attorneys General in Tennessee from evaluating a petition for post-conviction relief, determining that it has some merit, and concluding that it is appropriate to concede a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief.  In so doing, the majority opinion prevents the State’s statutorily designated attorney from negotiating the most favorable settlement of the challenged underlying charges before a post-conviction trial court grants full post-conviction relief.  If a District Attorney General must wait until the post-conviction trial court rules that post-conviction relief must be granted, the District Attorney General, as in the case sub judice, might very well have a difficult task to locate witnesses and/or physical evidence to present in a new trial.  Consequently the State would be required to negotiate from a position of weakness as a result of mandating that the court first grant post-conviction relief prior to the State negotiating a new settlement of the challenged offenses.  As a result, the majority opinion undermines the authority of each District Attorney General in this state. 

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Mark Alan Kirby, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The agreement provided that Defendant’s sentence was three years as a Range I standard offender. The manner of service of the sentence was reserved for determination by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the entire sentence to be served in confinement. Defendant has appealed, asserting the trial court should have granted full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Henderson County jury convicted the Petitioner, John N. Moffitt, of reckless aggravated assault, as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, for slashing the victim’s arm with a pocketknife following a property dispute. State v. John N. Moffitt, No. W2014-02388-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 369379, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 29, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 24, 2016). This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal; however, this Court also reduced the amount of restitution that the trial court ordered and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of restitution that the Petitioner could pay. Id. On March 10, 2020, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that his conviction for reckless aggravated assault was “an illegal and unconstitutional conviction” because the indictment failed to allege “recklessly,” which the Petitioner contends is a “required mental state indicating a lesser kind of culpability” than that required for aggravated assault. The Petitioner alleged that he was entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations because he was “totally unaware of the fact about [sic] the illegal and unconstitutional conviction.” The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that it was time-barred and that the Petitioner’s allegations did not constitute new evidence and thus did not toll the statute of limitations. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

This is an appeal from a divorce proceeding involving a short-term marriage with minor children.  In conjunction with its divorce judgment, the trial court designated the mother as the primary residential parent, allowed her to relocate to Mississippi, and awarded her both transitional alimony and alimony in solido.  Father now raises several issues for our review on appeal.  While we affirm the trial court’s judgment pertaining to the parties’ parenting plan and its determination about the children’s best interests, we vacate a component of the in solido award given to the mother in a purported attempt to equalize the division of the marital estate.  We further vacate the award of transitional alimony and remand the case for that issue to be reconsidered by the trial court.  The balance of the judgment is affirmed.  The mother’s request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal is granted.

The petitioner, Christopher N. Hernandez, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his convictions of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and solicitation of a minor, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Jermarlon Sanders, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction of aggravated robbery, for which he received an eight-year term of imprisonment. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered based on the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Brandon Lee Clymer, 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. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.