APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In 2020, the Defendant, Justin McDowell, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell
or deliver less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a Drug Free Zone, a park. The
trial court imposed an effective sentence of five years of incarceration. The Defendant
filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to an amendment to the Drug Free Zone Act. See
T.C.A. § 39-17-432. The trial court held a hearing and denied relief. On appeal, the
Petitioner contends that his motion for resentencing should have been granted. After
review, we dismiss the appeal.

This is a modification of child support case. Mother appeals the trial court’s: (1) discovery rulings regarding Father’s inheritance, banking, and trading accounts; (2) findings with respect to Father’s income; (3) denial of an upward deviation from the Child Support Guidelines; and (4) assignment of the Guardian ad Litem costs to Mother. We reverse the trial court’s order denying Mother’s discovery requests and the assignment of the Guardian ad Litem costs to Mother. We vacate the order establishing Father’s child support obligation and denying Mother’s request for an upward deviation. All other issues are pretermitted, and we remand the case for further proceedings.

Foster parents appeal the dismissal of their petition to terminate a father’s parental rights and to adopt. The petitioners sought to terminate the father’s rights on two grounds: failure to file a timely petition to establish paternity and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody and financial responsibility for the child. The trial court found insufficient evidence to support either ground for termination. Upon review, we find clear and convincing evidence to support one of the alleged grounds. So we vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Laura Adams (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court for Robertson County (“the Trial Court”) against Timothy Adams, Sr. (“Husband”). In its final judgment of divorce, the Trial Court determined that real estate in Lawrence County (“Lawrence County property”), purchased by Husband prior to the marriage, was marital property because it had become “inextricably commingled.” The Trial Court awarded Wife “40% of the total proceeds” from the Lawrence County property. The Trial Court further awarded Wife the marital residence and any and all equitable interests in the marital residence. Husband has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment.

This is the second appeal in this healthcare liability case. In the first appeal, which was taken under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, this Court reversed the trial court’s denial of Appellees’/healthcare providers’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion. The trial court held that, although Appellant/patient failed to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26- 121(a)(2)(E), Appellant showed extraordinary cause to excuse the noncompliance. The only question certified in the Rule 9 appeal was whether the trial court erred in finding extraordinary cause. We determined that it did and reversed the extraordinary cause finding but left undisturbed the trial court’s finding on substantial compliance. On remand, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss without hearing. Now, in this Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 appeal, we review the trial court’s initial finding that Appellant did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements. Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in so finding, we vacate the order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss and remand for reconsideration of the question of substantial compliance under the correct legal standard.

The Petitioner, Shaun Alexander Hodge, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for
writ of error coram nobis based on alleged newly discovered evidence of a trial witness’s
criminal history. Based on our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Marshawn Brakefield, of attempted first degree murder involving serious bodily injury and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, arguing that the only proof at trial was the testimony of a single witness who was not credible. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Hunter Lowery, Defendant, entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated assault, and
following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence to be served
in confinement. Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
his request for alternative sentencing without placing sufficient findings on the record.
Following a de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Tandrea Laquise Sanders, pled guilty to assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The sentences were suspended to probation after service of six months in custody. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a sentence of split confinement and failed to properly fix a percentage of the sentence to be served before consideration of rehabilitative programs. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In 2016, the Petitioner, Mack Mandrell Loyde, was convicted of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole. In 2018, this court affirmed his convictions and remanded for resentencing. State v. Loyde, No. M2017- 01002-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1907336, at *1-3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 23, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 8, 2018). In 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the denial of which was affirmed on appeal. Loyde v. State, No. M2022-01132-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL 5447386, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2023). In 2023, five years after his convictions and sentence became final, the Petitioner, acting pro se, filed the instant petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was summarily dismissed as beyond the one-year statute of limitations. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends he is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period based on an affidavit from an individual, Brandy Oldaker, who claimed to have been involved in the underlying offenses and who denied the Petitioner was involved. The Petitioner claims the affidavit is newly discovered evidence of his innocence.¹ Upon review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Shane Dwight Bingham, appeals from his convictions for attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the offenses; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s flight from police; and (3) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, James Leon Parker, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s summary
dismissal of his motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Free Zone Act (“DFZA”).
Defendant was convicted in 2008 of several drug-related offenses, including one count of
sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (Count 6) and one count
of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (Count 7). The
trial court merged Counts 6 and 7 and imposed a sentence of 25 years on those counts,
which the court ordered to run consecutively to his effective eight-year sentence in the
other counts, for a total effective sentence of 33 years. In 2022, Defendant filed a pro se
motion for resentencing under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h), and the
trial court appointed counsel. While Defendant’s motion was pending in the trial court,
Governor Bill Lee granted Defendant executive clemency, ordering that Defendant’s 25-
year sentence in Counts 6 and 7 be commuted, which allowed Defendant to immediately
become parole eligible on those counts. Based on Governor Lee’s commutation order, the
trial court determined that Defendant was ineligible for resentencing and dismissed
Defendant’s motion “without a hearing due to that ineligibility.” Defendant appeals that
dismissal and asks this Court to review it under as a writ of certiorari. Following our
review, we grant certiorari and reverse and remand for a hearing on Defendant’s motion.

What began as a public records request ended with the trial court imposing sanctions upon the requester for violations of Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court concluded that the public records requester violated Rule 11 by including a false statement and deceptive exhibit in her Public Records Act Petition, by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry before filing her Petition, and by having an improper purpose in connection with her anticipated speech regarding any public records that she might obtain via the Public Records Act. The trial court imposed multiple sanctions upon the requester including a $5,000 penalty, a requirement to associate counsel in any future pro se filing within the judicial district, and a dismissal with prejudice of her Petition. We conclude the trial court properly determined the requester violated Rule 11 by including a false statement and deceptive exhibit in her Petition. Given the context of the Public Records Act, we conclude, however, that the trial court erred with regard to its conclusion that the requester made an inadequate inquiry prior to filing her Petition and had an improper purpose in connection with the requester’s anticipated use of any documents she obtained. We also conclude the monetary penalty imposed by the trial court violates the Fifty-Dollar Fine Clause of the Tennessee Constitution. Because of our other findings, we vacate the trial court’s imposition of all three sanctions, and remand for determination of an appropriate sanction in light of our decision.

This appeal concerns the attempt to register and enforce a foreign decree purporting to modify the terms of a divorce decree. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the foreign decree was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although appellant raised a second issue for review on appeal concerning attorney’s fees, we conclude appellant is not entitled to any relief on the issue.

A Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Michael Taylor, for first degree
premeditated murder, unlawful possession of a weapon, and violation of an order of
protection. The Defendant, at his jury trial, was convicted of the lesser included offense of
second degree murder as well as the charged offenses of unlawful possession of a weapon
and violation of an order of protection. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court
imposed an effective twenty-five year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial
court provided an incomplete and misleading jury instruction on self-defense that
prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Because the self-defense instruction was error
and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the particular facts of this
case, we reverse the Defendant’s convictions and remand this case to the trial court for a
new trial on all counts.

In this post-divorce custody and contempt action, the trial court held the defendant father in criminal contempt for violating the parties’ permanent parenting plan. The trial court sentenced the father to serve 186 consecutive days in jail. The trial court also limited the father’s parenting time with the parties’ minor children and awarded the mother her attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the action. The father timely appealed to this Court, arguing that he lacked adequate notice of the criminal contempt allegations and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. The father also argues that the trial court erred in limiting his parenting time under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-406. The issues related to inadequate notice are waived because the father raises those issues for the first time on appeal. Father’s argument regarding his parenting time is waived for the same reason. We also conclude that the trial court’s sentence for the father’s criminal contempt is appropriate under the circumstances and does not amount to an abuse of discretion. Finally, we award the mother her costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in defending this appeal.

Eugene Smith, Defendant, entered best interest pleas to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery with sentencing left open to the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of twelve years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence of six years on each count, imposing consecutive sentences, and denying alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

A father was found to have committed severe child abuse in a dependency and neglect case. The Department of Children’s Services subsequently filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights based on the previous finding of severe child abuse. Father asserts that the trial court erred in failing to continue the termination proceedings in his absence, in finding a ground for termination of his parental rights, and in determining that termination was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Parents, on behalf of their children who are public school students, and an education-focused parents’ rights organization brought suit against the Williamson County Board of Education, arguing that the Board’s adoption and implementation of a particular curriculum violates Tennessee law. The Plaintiffs argue the curriculum violates a state law restricting the use of Common Core textbooks and instructional materials in public schools and violates another state law that bars the teaching of certain prohibited concepts in public schools. The School Board moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion on two justiciability grounds. The trial court concluded that the parents and the parents’ rights organization lacked standing to maintain either claim. The trial court also concluded that the Plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to their prohibited concepts claim and had not done so. The Plaintiffs appealed. With the exception of a family that left the county public school system and has not expressed in their pleadings an intent to return, we conclude that trial court erred in finding the Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We reverse, however, the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Common Core claim and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Benjamin Cloe Byrer, was convicted by a Gibson County Circuit Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210 (2018). The Defendant was sentenced to nineteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Malik DeWayne Hardin, appeals the denial of his motion for resentencing
for his guilty-pleaded conviction of possession with the intent to sell less than .5 grams of
cocaine in a drug free school zone, which resulted in a sentence of twelve years at 100%
as a Range II offender. The Defendant asserts that the trial court issued a fundamentally
illegal ruling and palpably abused its discretion by comparing the sentence the Defendant
received pursuant to his negotiated plea agreement to the sentence he faced if convicted of
the greater charged offense and concluding that he would not receive a lesser sentence
under the 2022 amendment to the Drug-Free School Zone Act. The Defendant therefore
requests that this court, in the interest of justice, convert his improperly filed Rule 3 appeal
into a common law writ of certiorari and reverse the ruling of the trial court. Because the
Defendant has not shown that his case warrants review pursuant to a writ of certiorari, we
dismiss the appeal.

Petitioner, Daniela Valderrama, filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Ms. Valderrama’s petition for recusal appeal fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 10B, section 2.03. Due to Ms. Valderrama’s failure to comply with Rule 10B, the appeal is dismissed.

This is a divorce action involving, inter alia, the classification of property, equitable valuation and division of marital property, and support for an alleged disabled adult child beyond the age of 21. After our exhaustive review, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s determinations in this matter. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respect.