APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Corey Brown, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of especially
aggravated robbery for which he received a sentence of twenty-one years in prison. On
appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support his conviction and that the trial judge failed to execute its responsibility as
thirteenth juror. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

The Defendant, Chandler Gant, pled guilty in the Robertson County Circuit Court to assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the trial court to 11 months, 29 days in the county jail, with 30 days to serve on consecutive weekends and the remainder of the time on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a sentence of partial confinement. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Morrieo Allen, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief,
arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of
counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Plaintiff brought suit against her former employer, alleging sexual harassment by her supervisor and claiming constructive discharge. The Employer moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in the Plaintiff’s employment agreement. The Plaintiff responded by invoking the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which the trial court concluded invalidates the mandatory arbitration provision. We reverse the trial court’s decision because the harassment of the Plaintiff and her constructive discharge occurred prior to the effective date of the Act.

The Defendant, Jennifer Michelle Childs, was indicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and filed motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment. The trial court held a hearing, ruled that the Defendant’s warrantless arrest was illegal, and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals the dismissal, arguing that the remedy for an illegal arrest is suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the State. Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment is reversed, the indictment is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The parents of a child brought suit to personally recover for negligent infliction of
emotional distress in relation to sexual abuse of their child that had been perpetrated by the
defendant church’s former paid volunteer coordinator. The church filed a motion to
dismiss the parents’ claims and argued that the parents’ attempt to recover for negligent
infliction of emotional distress was not legally cognizable because the parents did not
perceive any injury-producing event. The trial court countenanced this position and
entered an order dismissing the parents’ claims. The parents then filed a motion seeking
relief from the dismissal order and, alternatively, to amend their complaint. The trial court
ultimately denied the parents’ motion, following which the present appeal ensued. For the
reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Terrance Terrell King, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion seeking resentencing for a drug-related conviction under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h). Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion, and the State contends this court does not have jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal. Defendant rejects the State’s assertion. After reviewing the applicable law and the parties’ arguments, we conclude Defendant does not have an appeal as of right available to him, and the appeal is therefore dismissed

The Petitioner, Douglas Eugene Horton, appeals from the Henderson County Circuit
Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2018 convictions for two
counts of possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, four counts of possession
of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, and
four counts of facilitation of possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the
commission of a dangerous felony, for which he is serving an effective fifteen-year
sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by
denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel allegations for counsel’s (1) failure
to obtain adequate discovery, (2) failure to challenge the search warrant resulting in the
Petitioner’s arrest, (3) failure to subpoena the Petitioner’s daughter and his girlfriend as
witnesses at the trial, (4) failure to play a body camera recording purporting to show
officer misconduct, and (5) cumulative errors during the trial. We affirm the judgment of
the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Timothy Elliott1 Davis, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence
of an intoxicant (“DUI”) and driving under the influence of an intoxicant with a blood
alcohol concentration (“BAC”) greater than 0.8 (“DUI per se”). Defendant pled guilty to
DUI, third offense following the jury verdict on the first two counts. The trial court
sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended to supervised
probation upon service of seven months in the county jail. On appeal, Defendant argues
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol
test and that the evidence is insufficient to support the guilty verdict. Following our review
of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court but remand for correction of the judgment forms consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that three grounds for termination existed as to the mother: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) persistent conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The juvenile court also found that the termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm.

A Hamilton County jury convicted Defendant, Tamarion Terrell Johnson, of second degree
murder and aggravated assault in the shooting death of the victim, Shawnquell Stanfield.
The trial court merged the assault conviction into the murder conviction. Defendant argues
on appeal that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight and that the evidence
was insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction. We affirm the judgments
of the trial court.

The Defendant, Adam Janes, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Specifically, the Defendant argues that: (1) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) he entered into his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily; (3) the assistant district attorney was prejudiced against him; (4) he was entitled to concurrent sentences; (5) he was not given the opportunity of rehabilitation; (6) his sentence was not the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence was imposed; and (7) the State failed to file a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Amanda Helena Rogers, appeals her Maury County Circuit Court jury convictions of facilitation of attempted first degree murder, facilitation of vandalism of property in an amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, and two counts of reckless endangerment for which the trial court imposed an effective term of 10 years and six months to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction of facilitation of attempted first degree murder and that the trial court erred in imposing the sentence. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Hank Cooley, Jr., appeals from his best interest, guilty-pleaded
convictions for felony evading arrest risking death or injury, driving on a revoked license
(second offense), reckless driving, disobeying a traffic signal, violation of the light law,
speeding, and failure to exercise due care. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-603(b)(3)(B) (2018)
(subsequently amended) (evading arrest), 55-50-504 (2020) (driving on a revoked
license), 55-10-205 (2020) (reckless driving), 55-8-110 (2020) (subsequently amended)
(disobeying a traffic signal), 55-9-402 (2020) (subsequently amended) (violation of light
law), 55-8-152 (2008) (speeding), and 55-8-136 (2020) (failure to exercise due care).
The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twelve years in
confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the court erred by denying alternative
sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A homeowner, displeased with the work performed by a handyman, brought suit, seeking
damages and relief under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The handyman
counterclaimed for the value of the oral contract for services, asserting the homeowner
breached the contract by improperly terminating it. The circuit court denied relief to both
parties, and the parties appeal. We conclude that the circuit court did not err in determining
that there was no enforceable contract, precluding relief for the handyman. Likewise, the
homeowner is not entitled to relief because the evidence does not preponderate against the
circuit court’s finding that there was no misrepresentation and that the handyman rendered
services to earn certain prepaid amounts. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

This appeal arises from a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Martin Walker (“Petitioner”), an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). Petitioner seeks review of the decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“Board”) to deny him parole. He raises numerous challenges to the propriety of the Board’s action and procedures. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her two children. Following a trial, the juvenile court found that six grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the mother’s parental rights were terminated. The mother appeals. Of the six grounds the juvenile court found had been proven, we affirm four of them but reverse two. We also affirm the determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.

This is an appeal from a case arising in the Shelby County General Sessions Environmental Court. For the reasons stated herein, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review this appeal. Moreover, we are unable to transfer this appeal because it was not timely filed for the appropriate court that has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and it is, therefore, dismissed.

The State of Tennessee appealed the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of her car.  On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred because probable cause existed to search the Defendant’s car based on a police dog’s signal for the presence of narcotics.  We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for reinstatement of the charges.

I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion based on the narrow issue raised by the parties and the existing law in Tennessee.  I write separately, however, to highlight how the legalization of hemp has fractured the foundation underlying the rule that a drug detection dog sniff is not a search subject to Fourth Amendment protections.  In my view, the cases before this court thus far miss the primary issue—whether a drug detection dog sniff that no longer discloses only contraband is itself a search that must be supported by probable cause.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on four grounds. The Tennessee
Department of Children’s Services does not defend two of the four grounds, so we reverse
as to those grounds. We affirm the ground that Mother is unable to parent the children due
to her present mental condition. Because the trial court’s order does not contain sufficient
findings of fact, we vacate the trial court’s findings that the mother failed to manifest a
willingness and ability to parent and that termination is in the children’s best interests.

Father appeals the trial court’s finding of abandonment by wanton disregard as a ground for termination of his parental rights, as well as its finding that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

The Plaintiff brought a premises liability claim after falling off his own ladder while at the Defendant’s residence. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing he had no duty to warn and could avoid liability under principles of comparative fault. The Plaintiff countered that the Defendant was actually his employer and that the Defendant’s decision not to provide workers’ compensation insurance prevented the Defendant from being able to raise a comparative fault defense. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant did have a duty to warn. The trial court granted the Defendant summary judgment finding no duty to warn and that even if a duty existed that Plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law based upon comparative fault principles. The Plaintiff appealed to this Court. We affirm.

Neighbors sued to invalidate zoning ordinances that would allow two real estate development projects to be built at significantly taller heights than prior zoning regulations allowed. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in part because it found that the passage of two zoning ordinances gave the developers vested property rights under the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act of 2014 (VPRA). We conclude the trial court erred in its application of the VPRA, but we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.