APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this child custody action, the trial court awarded custody of the minor child to the child’s father despite the fact that the child had resided with and/or been in the legal custody of the respondent maternal grandmother for a significant period of time. The maternal grandmother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

The Defendant, Robert Antwan McElmurry, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant/Appellant filed a motion for attorney fees in the Knox County Circuit Court after Plaintiffs/Appellees’ claims against the defendant were dismissed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). The trial court denied Defendant’s request, concluding that one of the plaintiffs’ claims was an issue of first impression and as such, the plaintiffs were exempt from having attorney’s fees assessed against them. Defendant appeals. Because we conclude that the trial court’s application of the attorney fees statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119, was in error, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant-Appellant, David Levon Byers, Jr., was convicted of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, possession of drug paraphernalia, and “improper lane change” in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-123, for which he received an effective sentence of four-years to be served on supervised probation. Prior to trial, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress challenging the constitutionality of the traffic stop, which was denied by the trial court. The sole issue presented in this appeal as of right is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Upon our review, we affirm.

In this action for a deficiency judgment following the foreclosure sale of six tracts of real property, some of which were improved by resort cabins, the trial court granted the plaintiff bank’s motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant real estate developers and their limited liability company, for which the developers were guarantors, finding that the developers were liable for deficiency balances owed on promissory notes and guaranty agreements, as well as accrued interest, bank charges, late fees, and attorney’s fees. Following a bench trial concerning the amounts owed, the trial court awarded money judgments to the bank in the amounts, respectively, of $1,180,223.77 against the developers as individuals and $144,848.30 against the developers’ limited liability company. Finding, inter alia, that the developers had failed to properly plead the defense of inadequate foreclosure sales prices, the trial court sustained the bank’s objections to the developers’ requests to cross-examine the bank’s witnesses and introduce additional evidence regarding the adequacy of the foreclosure sales prices and foreclosure process. The trial court subsequently denied the developers’ motion to vacate the order granting the money judgments. The developers have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this appeal arising from a divorce, the trial court adopted a permanent parenting plan for the parties’ two minor children that named the father the primary residential parent for one child and the mother the primary residential parent for the other. The court also awarded Mother alimony in futuro after finding her to be relatively economically disadvantaged and that rehabilitation was not feasible. On appeal, the father challenges both the permanent parenting plan and the alimony award. We affirm. 

This case involves the interpretation of a buy-sell provision in a partnership agreement. The trial court concluded that the buy-sell provision was properly triggered by the Appellee and ordered that $125,000.00 be paid to the Appellee, representing the value of Appellee’s interest in the partnership. The trial court also awarded the Appellee attorney’s fees and held that other claims which had been pursued by the parties were moot. Having reviewed the terms of the buy-sell provision, we conclude that the provision was never properly triggered and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court to the extent that it purported to enforce the parties’ agreement. Because various other claims were dismissed as moot in light of the trial court’s specific enforcement of the buy-sell provision that dismissal is hereby vacated, and those additional claims are remanded for further consideration and proceedings in the trial court.

Defendant, Kenneth Guthrie, entered a best interest plea to attempted rape in exchange for a three-year sentence with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court at a sentencing hearing. After the hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve six months day-for-day with the balance of the sentence to be served on probation. Defendant appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court improperly denied a sentence of full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiffs/Appellants brought a negligence suit against the State of Tennessee after their six-year old son fell from the fifth floor balcony of the state owned and operated Paris Landing State Park Inn. The Plaintiffs alleged that the State was negligent in two respects: 1) in allowing their son to gain access to an unoccupied guest room and the attached balcony, and 2) in maintaining balcony railings that were shorter in height than was required by applicable building codes. Following a bench trial, the Tennessee Claims Commissioner concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the State’s negligence was the proximate cause of their son’s injuries. Because we have determined that the Commissioner’s conclusions of law are deficient and only address one of the Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, we vacate the judgment and remand for further consideration.

Petitioner, Stevie Gibson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he challenged his Shelby County Criminal Court convictions for two counts of second degree murder and one count of aggravated robbery. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to argue at trial that Petitioner could not form the requisite mens rea for the charges of first degree murder and aggravated robbery due to his voluntary intoxication at the time of the offense. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that he was denied a full and fair hearing due to the post-conviction judge’s refusal to recuse himself. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm.

A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children. The juvenile court found four statutory grounds for termination of mother’s parental rights and two statutory grounds for termination of father’s parental rights. The court also found that termination of both parents’ parental rights is in the children’s best interest. We conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support one ground for termination against Mother and two grounds for termination against Father. We further conclude that termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interest. So we affirm.

The Appellant, Sharrad Sharp, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, a Class A felony; two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, a Class A felony; one count of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, a Class B felony; three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and two counts of child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, a Class D felony. After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective thirty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, the Appellant contends that six of the
twenty-five counts of the indictment are void because they failed to state an offense, that it was plain error for the State to play the victims’ forensic interviews in their entirety for the jury and introduce those interviews into evidence, that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, and that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentencing. The State acknowledges that six of the convictions should be vacated because the indictment failed to provide the Appellant with adequate notice. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Appellant’s convictions of aggravated child abuse in count one, aggravated child neglect in counts five and six, and aggravated assault in counts two, seven, and eight must be reversed and vacated and the charges dismissed because the indictment failed to provide the Appellant with adequate notice of the offenses charged. The Appellant’s remaining convictions of aggravated sexual battery in count seventeen and child abuse in counts eighteen and nineteen and the resulting effective sixteen-year sentence are affirmed.

The Defendant, William Scott Hunley, was convicted of possession with intent to sell more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine, possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He received an effective sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges only his conviction of possession with intent to sell methamphetamine, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. He also challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Upon reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In this dependent and neglect proceeding, the maternal grandparents of four children appeal an order entered in the Shelby County Juvenile Court dismissing a petition in which they sought visitation with the children pursuant to the grandparent visitation statute at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306. For the reasons set forth hereinafter we affirm the juvenile court’s dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support and abandonment by willful failure to visit. With respect to the former ground, we reverse, finding insufficient evidence to support a finding that Father had the ability to pay child support. However, we affirm the latter ground, finding ample evidence that father had failed to exercise his visitation rights for over two years prior to the filing of the termination petition. We further find that termination of father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Steven Kelly, was convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. By agreement of the parties, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a suspended nine-year sentence to be served consecutively to a federal sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence failed to prove that he had the intent to sell the cocaine. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Crystal L. Gregoire, pled guilty in the Lawrence County Circuit Court to tampering with evidence and was convicted following a jury trial of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation and argues that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agent of the facts surrounding the victim’s 1982 kidnapping convictions and the victim’s having put out an “open contract” on the agent and the agent’s family, by granting the State’s request for a special jury instruction pertaining to the victim’s having become “disarmed or helpless” during the killing, and by admitting prejudicial crime scene and autopsy photographs. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal stems from a healthcare liability action filed nearly two decades ago. The defendant hospital filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that neither of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses was competent to testify and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not establish their claim. After the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment along with a new affidavit of one of the previous experts, which purported to establish the expert’s competency to testify. The trial court, however, denied the motion to alter or amend, and the plaintiffs specifically appealed the trial court’s order denying their motion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

The pro se Petitioner, Christopher Jake Reynolds, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The Defendant-Appellant, Septian Valentine, appeals from the revocation of supervised release by the Lake County Circuit Court, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm.

This appeal arises from injuries the plaintiff sustained from a fall while descending the exterior sidewalk steps of property owned and managed by the City of Dyersburg. The plaintiff contends she fell because, inter alia, the city was negligent in the design and maintenance of the stairway and in failing to correct the defect in the steps. Following a bench trial, the court found the proof failed to establish that there was a dangerous or defective condition that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall, and if there was a defective condition, the City of Dyersburg had no prior notice. The trial court also found that if there was a defective condition, the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault which bars any recovery. For these and other reasons, the trial court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. Having determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, and discerning no error with its conclusions of law, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Kevin Fennell, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas are constitutionally infirm due to trial counsel’s failure to inform him that his sentence was required to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.