APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea negotiation stage. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was deficient in proceeding to trial based on an erroneous jurisdictional argument. As a result, the Petitioner argues that, but for trial counsel’s erroneous advice, he would have accepted the State’s more favorable plea offer. The State argues that the Petitioner has failed to overcome the presumption that trial counsel exercised reasonable judgment in all strategic decisions. Moreover, the State asserts that because the Petitioner has failed to prove he would have accepted the ten-year offer extended to him instead of the twentyyear offer, he has failed to prove prejudice. For the reasons that follow, I would have reversed the judgment of the post-conviction court and remanded this matter for a rehearing. The facts underlying the Petitioner’s convictions stem from the execution of a search warrant upon his home resulting in the discovery of oxycodone and several hundred dihydrocodeinone pills. State v. Roy Allen Smith, No. M2014-01172-CCA-R3- CD, 2015 WL 3550106, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 8, 2015) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015). The Petitioner was ultimately convicted after a jury trial of simple possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, maintaining a dwelling used for keeping or selling controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. Id. The trial court ordered the Petitioner’s twelve-year sentence to be served consecutively to six prior convictions with an aggregate sentence of thirty-seven years for which the Petitioner had been on probation at the time that the instant offenses were committed. Roy Allen Smith, at *3. In total, it appears that the Petitioner received an effective forty-nine-year sentence, the bulk of which is for driving offenses.

The Defendant, Michael A. Flippen, Jr., entered a guilty plea to second degree murder, with the length of his sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the Defendant received a twenty-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in applying certain enhancement factors. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The juvenile court found four statutory grounds for termination of parental rights: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. The juvenile court also found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest. Thus, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

Defendant, Wellington Thomas, pled guilty to driving under the influence (“DUI”), second offense, and evading arrest. In doing so, Defendant reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of his traffic stop. The police officer that stopped Defendant observed Defendant’s vehicle touching the fog line twice and crossing the centerline dividing southbound lanes of traffic without a signal. The basis for the traffic stop cited by the police officer was that Defendant had failed to maintain his lane. Defendant filed a motion to suppress and contended that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. After a review of the record and the dash camera video depicting Defendant’s driving, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Andrea Spencer, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that the trial court erred because his motion stated a colorable claim for sentencing outside the statutory ranges and a Blakely v. Washington violation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Joshua L. Carter, Petitioner, was convicted in separate jury trials of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone; possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone; simple possession of marijuana; and evading arrest in case number 2011-B-1648 and of voluntary manslaughter, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and felony murder in case number 2011-D-3013. Petitioner received a total effective sentence of forty years as a multiple offender in case number 2011-B-1648 and received a life sentence in case number 2011-D-3013, to be served consecutively to his forty-year sentence. These cases were consolidated on appeal, and this court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions. Petitioner filed petitions for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court consolidated the petitions and denied relief. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that: (1) trial counsel in case number 2011-D-3013 failed to call an alibi witness; (2) trial counsel in case numbers 2011-B-1648 and 2011-D- 3013 failed to properly investigate the cases; and (3) trial counsel in case number 2011- B-1648 failed to withdraw. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

Dedrick Wiggins (“Defendant”) was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and sentenced to thirty-five years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s statement under the dying declaration hearsay exception and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the criminal court.

An Obion County grand jury indicted Tony Alan Winsett, Janet Michelle Stanfield, and Justin Bradley Stanfield for multiple drug and weapons charges based on the warrantless search of their home and the subsequent automobile stop involving defendants Winsett and Janet Stanfield.  The defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence against them based on an allegedly improper search.   Following a suppression hearing, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the charges against them.  The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.  The State then filed an application for permission to appeal to this Court.  See Tenn. R. App. P. 11(a).  We granted the State’s application and, upon review, hold that, with respect to defendants Winsett and Janet Stanfield, the warrantless search of the residence was constitutionally permissible based on defendant Winsett’s status as a parolee and the doctrine of common authority.  However, we conclude that the warrantless search with respect to defendant Justin Stanfield was constitutionally unreasonable because he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bedroom and the State failed to carry its burden of proving that defendant Winsett exercised common authority over Justin Stanfield’s bedroom.  Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

The warrantless search of the home of Tony Winsett, Janet Stanfield, and her son, Justin Stanfield, violated their rights under Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Mr. Winsett’s parolee status should not subject him, Ms. Stanfield or Mr. Stanfield to a warrantless and suspicionless search. The trial court did not err in suppressing evidence from the illegal search of the Winsett/Stanfield home. The majority does not err in suppressing the evidence as to Mr. Stanfield, although I do not agree with the majority’s reasoning. 

Appellant, Jonathan C. Hood, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

A manufacturer of military uniforms entered into an agreement with its supplier of fabric and the manufacturer’s bank whereby the bank would disburse funds from the manufacturer’s account to pay invoices for fabric the supplier shipped to the manufacturer. After several months, the supplier learned that the process for paying the invoices was not being followed and sent the bank the unpaid invoices directly and demanded payment. The manufacturer filed a declaratory judgment action, naming the supplier and the bank as defendants, and asked the court to determine the “rights, status or other legal relations” under the agreement. The supplier filed a crossclaim against the bank, asserting claims for breach of the disbursement agreement, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), fraud in the inducement of contracting, and civil conspiracy to commit fraud in the inducement. The court granted summary judgment to the bank on all of the supplier’s claims except the civil conspiracy claim; the supplier appeals. Upon a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.  

This appeal concerns visitation and parenting responsibilities following a divorce. The trial court granted decision-making authority over both children, a son and a daughter, to the father. After granting both parties 50/50 visitation with the son, the court awarded the father most of the visitation time with the daughter. The mother appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Defendant, Donald Ray Mahaffey, was convicted of the sale of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine; delivery of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine; conspiracy to sell and deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine; possession of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony; unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of force, violence, or a deadly weapon; possession of marijuana for resale; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Katherine Louise Holmes, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged her 2012 conviction of attempted first degree murder, alleging that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Joshua Brown, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Breach of contract and negligence action brought by disabled plaintiff who engaged nonattorney representative to assist in plaintiff’s application for social security disability benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant and denied the plaintiff’s motion to set the judgment aside, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(1). Plaintiff appeals; Determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60.02 motion, we affirm the judgment.

This appeal concerns an employee who made preparations to start a competing business while still employed by his old company. Todd Heins (“Heins”) was a manager working for Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. (“Leslie’s”), a nationwide pool supply business, at its Bartlett Hills location in the Memphis, Tennessee area. Jay Karcher (“Karcher”), while a customer in Leslie’s Bartlett Hills store, approached Heins one day while he was working with an idea about starting a new pool supply business. Heins was intrigued and followed up with Karcher to found Blue Wave Pool Supply of Memphis, LLC (“Blue Wave”). Heins resigned from Leslie’s before Blue Wave opened for business. Heins’ friend and Leslie’s employee Chad Pitcock (“Pitcock”) also resigned and went to work for Blue Wave. Leslie’s sued Blue Wave, Heins, Pitcock, and Karcher (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”) for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and inducement to breach contract. After a trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Defendants and dismissed Leslie’s complaint with prejudice. Leslie’s appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The defendant, Michael Dewayne Wade, appeals the revocation of his community corrections placement, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering the balance of his 12- year sentence to be served in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Appellant, Jose Ortiz, was convicted of child abuse and aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions and contends that “to enable reasonable appellate review[, this] court must establish a standard of performance for the trial court to satisfy its duty as the thirteenth juror.” Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Eugene David Sanders, Jr., appeals from his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated assault and aggravated criminal trespass, for which he received an effective sentence of fifteen years to serve in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to call Defendant’s court-appointed private investigator as a rebuttal witness. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Anthony Sinquarius Marks, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his 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.

This appeal results from a jury trial on claims of negligence, medical malpractice, and violations of the Tennessee Adult Protection Act by a nursing home. In addition to finding the limited liability company nursing home liable for the resident’s injuries, the jury awarded extensive compensatory and punitive damages against the nursing home’s related administrative services provider, the nursing home’s parent companies, and the individual members of the parent companies. Defendants appeal, raising a variety of issues related to the jury impaneled, the evidence presented, and the finding of liability against the non-nursing home defendants. We reverse the jury’s decision finding material evidence to subject the nursing home’s parent companies and their members directly or vicariously liable in this case. We affirm the direct liability of the nursing home’s administrative services provider. Because the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury appears to be largely predicated on the liability of the non-nursing home defendants, we vacate the award and remand for a new hearing solely as to the amount of punitive damages to be awarded. In all other respects, the verdict is affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. The child’s guardians, who had been granted custody of the child, filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights. The trial court granted the guardians’ petition after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that four grounds for termination were proven—willful failure to visit, willful failure to provide child support, failure to provide a suitable home, and persistence of conditions—and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We vacate the trial court’s finding regarding one ground for termination but otherwise affirm the order terminating the father’s parental rights. 

This appeal arises from a detainer action. Brewers Rentals (“Brewers”) obtained a detainer warrant against tenant Otto Karl Appelt (“Appelt”) in the General Sessions Court for Bradley County (“the General Sessions Court”). Appelt thereafter appealed to the Circuit Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”). Appelt paid a $500 appeal bond. However, Appelt did not post bond equal to one year’s rent as required by statute in order to retain possession during the appeal. Brewers filed a motion to dismiss and/or for possession in the Trial Court, which was granted. The Trial Court held that, as Appelt had neither surrendered possession nor posted the requisite bond, dismissal was required. Appelt appeals. We hold that Appelt’s failure to post bond equal to one year’s rent enables Brewers to regain possession immediately but does not deprive the Trial Court of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Appelt’s appeal. We vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for this case to proceed.

The Defendant, Christopher Russell, appeals his convictions for second degree murder and aggravated child abuse and his effective twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to continue the trial; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) his sentences are excessive. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.