APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Davidson and Shelby counties sued the State of Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program. The trial court found that both counties had standing and that the act was unconstitutional under  paragraph 2 of article XI, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. The State and intervening defendants appealed. We affirm

In this case involving the inheritance of an investment account, the three plaintiffs filed a complaint in September 2016, asserting, inter alia, that a letter executed by their father prior to his 2007 death had operated to create an express trust concerning the account, for which their stepmother had acted as trustee with the understanding that the plaintiffs were to be the beneficiaries of the account after her death. The plaintiffs alternatively sought imposition of a constructive trust. The plaintiffs’ stepmother, who is the subject decedent in this action, had died in April 2016. The plaintiffs initially named as defendants the co-executors of the decedent’s estate, as well as the financial institution holding the investment account. The trial court subsequently entered agreed orders to dismiss the financial institution as a party and to substitute as defendants the decedent’s three adult children from a previous marriage. Upon competing motions for summary judgment and following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that an express trust had been created by the writings of the plaintiffs’ father and that, alternatively, a constructive trust should be imposed based on the combined writings and actions of the plaintiffs’ father and the decedent. The defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the trial court denied following a hearing upon finding in part that new evidence submitted by the defendants should not be considered. The defendants have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a health care liability lawsuit. In 2013, Sandra Kanipe (“Ms. Kanipe”) died from an undiagnosed aortic dissection while in the care of Dr. Pragnesh Patel, M.D. (“Dr. Patel”). Travis Kanipe (“Mr. Kanipe”), Ms. Kanipe’s son, sued Dr. Patel in the Circuit Court for Hamblen County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the jury found in favor of Dr. Patel. The Trial Court granted Mr. Kanipe’s motion for a new trial on grounds that Dr. Patel had, through his testimony, shifted blame to a non-party despite having never pled comparative fault. After a second trial, the jury found in favor of Mr. Kanipe. Dr. Patel appeals, arguing among other things that he never shifted blame. From our review of the record, we conclude that Dr. Patel did, in fact, shift blame to a non-party when he testified in the first trial that the nurses never notified him of Ms. Kanipe’s ongoing chest pain. In view of our Supreme Court’s holding in George v. Alexander, 931 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1996), the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a retrial. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Kareem Northington, Defendant, appeals from the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Audarius Watts, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing the petition. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition as time-barred.

In this, his second delayed appeal, the defendant, Omari Shakir Davis, appeals the sentence imposed for his Davidson County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded conviction of possession with intent to sell or deliver 15 grams or more of a substance containing heroin, arguing that the trial court erred imposing an 18-year, fully-incarcerative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Jose Alvarado, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to call certain witnesses and present certain evidence and that trial counsel’s actions deprived him of his right to testify at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Pro se petitioner, Joe Jackson, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief arguing, inter alia, that the post-conviction court erred in (1) dismissing his petition without a hearing; and (2) denying his motion to recuse. Upon our review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey Mansir, was convicted by a Blount County jury of kidnapping, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-303, and assault, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-101.1 He was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to ten years’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a Knox County conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction for kidnapping; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s request for a mistrial following an improper comment by the victim; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant as a Range II offender based on a prior out of state felony conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Donald Gardner, appeals his Cocke County Circuit Court jury conviction of aggravated sexual battery, arguing that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Dallas Sarden, was convicted by a Washington County jury of first-degree felony murder and robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus five years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant’s request for a mistrial based on the same; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of pre-recorded testimony of the forensic pathologist and whether the photographs displayed during the testimony unduly prejudiced the Defendant; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions; and (4) whether the Defendant is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After a thorough review of the relevant facts and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this class action lawsuit involving an association of physicians alleging breach of an agreement by the defendant hospital corporation, a three-week jury trial resulted in a verdict of more than $57 million in damages. The trial court denied the defendant’s posttrial motions and subsequently awarded over $5 million in attorney’s fees and expenses. The defendant has appealed. Determining that the trial court erred in failing to submit the attorney’s fee issue to the jury, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and expenses and remand the issue to the trial court for determination by a jury. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

The Petitioner, Felix Hall, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, burglary of a building other than a habitation, and theft of property valued at $500 or less. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. The juvenile court determined that four statutory grounds supported terminating her parental rights: abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan; persistence of conditions; and her failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of her children. The court also determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of her children. Upon our review, we conclude there was clear and convincing evidence supporting both the grounds for termination and the best interest determination. So we affirm.

The Petitioner, Paul Wright, pleaded guilty to six counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The Petitioner timely filed a postconviction petition, alleging that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, concluding that the Petitioner had not proven Counsel was deficient or shown prejudice. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Ryan D. Buford, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Petitioner, Trevon Scott Barcus, appeals as of right from the Scott County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief, alleging that (1) his separate federal and state convictions for failing to register as a sex offender violate double jeopardy principles; (2) he entered an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea because the trial court failed to inform him that he could not transfer the supervision of his probation to another state; and (3) that this “categorical” prohibition on travel constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates principles of substantive due process. Following our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief and, therefore, affirm the summary dismissal of his petition.

Santos M. Martinez-Aleman, Petitioner, appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief from his guilty plea to two counts of sexual battery and resulting twelve-year sentence. After a review, we affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief.

In a letter sent to high-ranking school officials, parents claimed that a special education teacher had denied their child an appropriate education based on the child’s needs and improperly used physical restraints on the child. The parents also claimed that the teacher had ignored them at a school event and did not communicate with them for a month afterward. The teacher sued the parents for defamation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the parents, reasoning primarily that the parents had not published the letter. The court also reasoned that the statements in the letter were not defamatory and that the parents did not act with actual malice. We conclude that some of the statements in the letter were not defamatory but others were capable of being understood as defamatory. For those statements capable of conveying a defamatory meaning, the record lacked evidence of actual malice. So we affirm the grant of summary judgment. 

This case concerns the decision of the Rutherford County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) to deny a property owner’s application for a special exception to operate a major home-based business on his residential property. The property owner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court, and the court upheld the BZA’s decision. Discerning no error, we affirm the Chancery Court’s decision. 

Two children and two individuals who are neither biological nor adopted children of an intestate decedent contend that they are entitled to the decedent’s life insurance proceeds based on an alleged breach of contract between them and the decedent’s ex-girlfriend, who was the life insurance policy’s named beneficiary. The trial court found that the alleged contract failed for lack of consideration. We affirm the trial court’s decision. 

The petitioner, Shawn Gibson Delosh, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

In this post-divorce case, Doris Anne Baumgaertner (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s decision to deny her request to relocate the parties’ minor son (“Child”) to Germany. She also appeals the decision to change the primary residential parent designation from her to David Timothy Dungey (“Father”). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

The petitioner, Coty Shane Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his
guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

In a previous appeal, we affirmed a trial court’s decision to hold a party in contempt, but we vacated the award of compensatory damages. Keller v. Estate of McRedmond, No. M2013-02582-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 2447041, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018). We remanded the case to the trial court for a calculation of the damages solely attributable to the contemptuous conduct. Id. On remand, the trial court entered an amended judgment. In this appeal, among other things, the contemnor argues that the amount of damages awarded lacks a sufficient evidentiary basis. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the amount of damages awarded, we affirm.