APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Teddie Elijah Fason, entered guilty pleas to burglary, theft of property valued at more than $1,000, vandalism, and evading arrest, and he was sentenced to serve four years on probation. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and its judgment ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. After a thorough review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Leonard Ross, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence for his 1993 convictions for especially aggravated robbery, attempted second degree murder, and burglary and his effective thirty-five-year sentence. The Defendant contends that the trial court court erred by summarily dismissing his motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Armard Reeves, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief, alleging that he was deprived of an impartial jury based on juror misconduct and that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to pursue this issue in a motion for new trial and on direct appeal. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Larry Eugene Haynes, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for his forgery and misdemeanor theft convictions and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective six-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering his sentence into execution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Bryant Williamson was convicted of one count each of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and unlawful employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of life plus ten years. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions. After a thorough review of the record and briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Elijajuan Smith, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for his burglary of a business and vandalism convictions and ordering him to serve his effective four-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Fred E. Smith, Jr., is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

The trial court ordered the Appellant to pay its employee for the full twelve hours of a work shift excused due to the employee’s jury service. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and order that the case be dismissed.

The State of Tennessee appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s imposition of an eleven months, twenty-nine days’ confinement at 75% service for theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103 (2014) (theft); 39-14-105 (2014) (amended 2017) (grading of theft). On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred by sentencing the Defendant pursuant to the amended version of the grading of theft statute that became effective after the commission of the offense. However, we have concluded that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue because no appeal of right lies for the State pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 or Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-402. As a result, we dismiss the appeal.

This case involves an order of protection sought by the petitioner against the respondent, who is the petitioner’s husband, on behalf of the petitioner and her three minor children. The trial court initially granted an ex parte order of protection and scheduled the matter for hearing. Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court extended the ex parte order of protection for a period of one year, but it made no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the allegations in the petition or whether the petitioner had met her burden of proof. The petitioner timely appealed. Because the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, we hereby vacate the trial court’s order and remand for entry of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether the ex parte order of protection should be dissolved or an order of protection, not to exceed one year, be entered pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-605 (2017).

This is a slip-and-fall case. An employee of a catering company fell, injuring herself when leaving a private residence after dark as she attempted to traverse an outside staircase. The employee brought suit against the homeowners, and the homeowners filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the homeowners’ motion, concluding that the homeowners did not owe the employee a duty of care. Our review of the record has revealed that material, disputed facts remain which render this case inappropriate for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. 

This action involves a claim filed against the State of Tennessee with the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Commissioner ultimately dismissed the claim with prejudice for failure to advance the case to disposition. The claimant filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The claimant then filed a notice of appeal before the Commissioner ruled upon the motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Andrew Young Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which petition challenged his 1998 convictions of attempted first degree murder and felony reckless endangerment. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of coram nobis relief.

This appeal involves a breach of contract action in which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and later dismissed a motion to alter or amend its judgment. The plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion to alter or amend the judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Appellant, Jenaline Fisher, is appealing the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

The petitioner, Mark D. Moraca, appeals the denial of his motion to expunge the records of his 1994 convictions for simple possession of amphetamine and simple possession of cocaine. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A mother’s parental rights were terminated on the ground of abandonment by willfully failing to visit her daughter. Mother appeals, arguing that the petition initiating the proceeding did not include the notice required by Rule 9A of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure; that the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that she abandoned her child; and that termination was not in the child’s best interest. Upon our review, we conclude that the proof does not clearly and convincingly establish the ground of abandonment by failure to visit. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the petition.

This case stems from an employee benefit board’s decision to change a former employee’s disability pension from “in-line-of-duty” to “medical.” The former employee appealed the board’s decision to the trial court. The trial court reversed the board’s determination on the ground that the board had misapplied the applicable legal standard. Determining that the board relied on the appropriate legal standard and based its decision on substantial and material medical evidence, we reverse the trial court’s decision

This appeal concerns the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act. After a citizen was disruptive at several city council meetings, the city filed a petition under the Act, seeking to enjoin the citizen from attending city council meetings and from contacting city officials. The trial court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order and, following an evidentiary hearing, granted an injunction for three years. On its own motion, the court also issued a three-year injunction “separate and apart” from the Act. Because the city failed to meet its burden of proof under the Act and there was no other basis on which to grant injunctive relief, we reverse. 

The Petitioner, Melvin Braison, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and his guilty pleas were therefore unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a personal injury action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages incurred in an automobile accident. Although several issues are raised, the principal issues on appeal are whether the trial court erred by ordering the plaintiff to submit to an independent medical examination, and whether the court erred by sanctioning the plaintiff for refusing to submit to the examination by prohibiting her from offering any evidence at trial regarding medical bills or medical records related to future pain and suffering, future loss of enjoyment of life, and/or permanent impairment. The case was tried before a jury with the sanctions in place, and the plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $500.00 for her past pain and suffering. This appeal followed. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The pro se Petitioner, Demond Hughes Gunn, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

A Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. Father also appeals the termination of his rights on the ground of failure to provide prenatal support, and Mother also appeals the termination of her rights to her daughter on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. Upon a thorough review of the record, we reverse the termination of both parents’ rights on the ground of persistence of conditions, and the Father’s rights on the ground of failure to provide prenatal support; we affirm the trial court in all other respects.

The Petitioner, Isaiah Higgs, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This appeal arises from a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights filed by the foster parents. The Department of Children’s Services removed the child from the mother and father’s custody and placed the child in the custody of the foster parents because, shortly after the child was born, the child tested positive for drugs. On the petition of DCS, the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected based on the finding that the parents committed severe child abuse. Thereafter, DCS filed a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights based, in part, on the records provided by the case worker. Subsequently, DCS determined that the case worker had falsely reported that the parents were noncompliant with the permanency plan. Following an inquiry that revealed the parents were in substantial compliance with the permanency plan and that all drug tests were negative, DCS dismissed its petition with court approval. Thereafter, the foster parents commenced a new and independent action to terminate mother and father’s parental rights; the petition also named DCS as a respondent. The foster parents subsequently filed a motion to compel joinder of DCS as a co-petitioner on the ground that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(h)(1)(D) mandated that DCS file a petition to terminate parental rights if a juvenile court has made a finding that the parents committed severe child abuse. DCS opposed the motion on the ground that it had the discretion not to pursue termination of parental rights if a compelling reason existed. The trial court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to trial on the foster parents’ petition. Following trial, the court found that the foster parents proved severe child abuse by clear and convincing evidence; however, the court determined that termination of the parents’ rights was not in the child’s best interests and dismissed the petition. This appeal followed. Having determined that the foster parents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parents’ rights was in the child’s best interests, we affirm.