APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal arises from a juvenile proceeding wherein the mother, Heather P. (“Mother”) filed a petition to modify her visitation with her two children, Haley S. and Leila P. (“the Children”), who were eleven and four years old, respectively, at the time of trial. Haley’s father, Michael S. (“Father”), remained incarcerated during the entire action. Leila’s father was deceased prior to the commencement of this proceeding. The paternal grandparents of Leila, Leroy W. and Tammie W. (“Grandparents”), who had legal custody of both children, subsequently filed a counter-petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children and Father’s parental rights to Haley. The magistrate of the juvenile court entered a pre-trial order, stating, inter alia, that if Grandparents were successful in terminating the parents’ rights, Mother’s petition to modify visitation would be dismissed but that if Grandparents were not successful, Mother’s petition would be scheduled for hearing. The magistrate’s order further allowed Mother to amend her original petition to modify visitation. Following a bench trial regarding the termination action, the trial court granted Grandparents’ petition to terminate the parents’ parental rights to the Children. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to the removal of the children from Mother’s custody still persisted. The trial court further found that grounds existed regarding Father because he had abandoned Haley by failing to visit her and because he had failed to establish parentage. Mother appealed the trial court’s decision. Because no adjudicatory hearing order exists in the record finding the Children to be dependent, neglected, or abused, we reverse the ground of persistence of conditions as to Mother. We further determine that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support its determination that statutory grounds for termination existed regarding Father. Therefore, we vacate the portion of the judgment terminating Father’s parental rights and remand to the trial court for sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(k) (2017).

The Defendant, Jason Levi Butts, fired a shot from a rifle toward a home, and the bullet penetrated the wall and hit the sleeping victim in the hip. The trial court ruled that all three statements which the Defendant made to law enforcement during the investigation of the shooting were admissible. The Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of reckless endangerment, a Class C felony, and reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of three and two years, respectively. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements and that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts. We conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the Defendant’s initial statement to police, which he made without being advised of his rights and after law enforcement twice told him he could not leave the police station. However, we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we affirm the convictions.

This appeal arises from a lawsuit over a fatal cycling accident. Carolyn Crisp (“Plaintiff”), surviving spouse of William Andrew Crisp (“Decedent”), sued Michael Nelms (“Nelms”) and George Long (“Long”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Blount County (“the Trial Court”) for negligence. Decedent and four others, including Nelms and Long, were riding as part of a “paceline” group when a crash occurred. Nelms asserted comparative fault, stating that Long slowed down suddenly at the head of the line. Long denied he slowed down suddenly. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court held, among other things, that paceline cycling inherently is dangerous and that Decedent was at least 50% at fault for his accident. Plaintiff appealed to this Court. We hold, inter alia, that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Long slowed down suddenly at the head of the line and whether a reasonable jury could find Decedent less than 50% at fault in his accident. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for the case to proceed.

Over twelve years ago, Petitioner, Ronnie Henry, was convicted at a jury trial of several counts of robbery involving multiple victims in Shelby County. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing. State v. Ronnie Henry, No. W2006-00344-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 450459, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008). After resentencing, this Court affirmed Petitioner’s effective seventy-year sentence. State v. Ronnie Henry, No. W2009-00089- CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 3103823, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2009), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner then unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. Ronnie Henry v. State, No. W2014-01786-CCA-R3-PC, 2016 WL 1402951, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2016), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Sept. 26, 2016). Now, Petitioner challenges the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Individual members of the 109th Tennessee General Assembly and the 110th Tennessee General Assembly appeal the order of the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) denying their motion to intervene in this suit involving the divorce of a same-sex couple and specifically involving the issue of whether the spouse who has no biological or other recognized legal relationship to the parties’ minor child may be considered a parent under Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-3-306 (2013). We find and hold that because all of the issues in the divorce now are final the case has been rendered moot as it has lost its justicability and no longer involves a present, ongoing controversy. We further find and hold that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. As the case is moot, we dismiss this appeal.

The Petitioner, Quanya Revell Prewitt, appeals the denial of her petition for postconviction relief from her conviction for possession of dihydrocodeinone in a school zone with intent to sell. She argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Jeffery A. Jones, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to DUI .08 % or greater, reserving as a certified question of law whether the results of his forced blood draw should have been suppressed because the affidavit in support of the search warrant contained reckless falsities and the form nature of the search warrant and affidavit prevented the magistrate from making an informed judgment as to probable cause. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Unmarried father filed a petition to establish parentage and a residential parenting schedule. After father’s parentage was established, the juvenile court set a residential parenting schedule that awarded equal parenting time and ordered the child’s surname changed to a hyphenated version of both parents’ surnames. Mother appealed, arguing that the court erred in fashioning the parenting schedule and in ordering a change of the child’s surname. Upon review, we affirm the residential parenting schedule but vacate that portion of the order directing a change in the child’s surname.

The Defendant, Derek Cullen Lee, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his request for judicial diversion. The Defendant contends (1) that the trial court “did not sufficiently weigh all the [required] factors . . . in deciding suitability for diversion”; and (2) that the trial court’s decision to deny his request for judicial diversion was based on the offense that he was convicted of rather than the applicable factors. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Brandon Lacy Franklin, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and imposition of an increased sentence of ten years’ incarceration. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant-Appellant, Adam Davis, was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-504. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to a concurrent term of eight years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Christopher James Kirkland, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Blount County Circuit Court conviction of the delivery of a controlled substance. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Calvin Lyndell Dibrell, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver within a prohibited zone, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle and that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions. Because the evidence obtained from the defendant’s vehicle was the result of an illegal search and seizure, the judgments of the trial court are vacated, and the case is dismissed.

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., concurring. I agree with the majority that the defendant was searched without reasonable suspicion, that the evidence should have been suppressed by the trial court,1 and that the judgment of conviction must be vacated and the case dismissed.

This appeal arises from a final decree of divorce. Mother appeals, contending the trial court erred in designating Father as the Primary Residential Parent and awarding the majority of parenting time to Father; she also challenges the division of the martial property. Because the trial court made no findings of fact and the statement of the evidence is inadequate, we have determined that we cannot conduct an appropriate appellate review of the issues raised. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is vacated and this matter is remanded for the trial court to, inter alia, comply with the mandate in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01, which states that “the [trial] court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.”

The plaintiff, a former firefighter with the City of McMinnville Fire Department, brought this retaliatory discharge claim against his previous employer under the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The City filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the City’s proffered reason for the discharge was pretextual. Finding no genuine dispute, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

The Petitioner, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court erred by summarily dismissing his petition as having been untimely filed and for failing to state a cognizable claim for relief. Following our review, we agree with the coram nobis court that the Petitioner is attempting to relitigate the denial of his pretrial suppression motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The Defendant, Thomas Louis Moore, appeals as of right from the Bradley County Criminal Court’s revocation of his probation and order of incarceration for the remainder of his ten-year sentence. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering execution of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Cory Lynn White, was convicted by a jury of making a false report or statement, and he received a three-year spilt confinement sentence for this conviction. The Defendant appeals, arguing (1) that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof offered at trial and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.1 Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jenna Sims, pled guilty to multiple driving and drug offenses, for which she received an agreed-upon sentence of one-year, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. The Defendant was later placed on probation. During her probation, the Defendant left a residential treatment program and failed to return to jail, so a probation violation warrant was filed and she was charged with failure to appear. She pled guilty to the failure to appear charge and received an agreed-upon sentence of one year to be served consecutively to the remainder of her probationary sentence. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked her probation and ordered her to serve her one year sentence for failure to appear in confinement. On appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation and by denying her alternative sentencing. We disagree. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

After a bifurcated trial, a jury convicted the Defendant, Kevin Allen Fleming, of one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”), fourth offense, and three counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of forty-two years in confinement. At the motion for new trial hearing, the parties agreed that the Defendant’s DUI fourth offense conviction should have merged into his conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide conviction, reducing his sentence to an effective sentence of forty years. No amended judgment appears in the record. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the blood draw evidence; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted the results from the blood draw because the evidence was not authenticated and the chain of custody was not established; (3) the trial court erred when it admitted autopsy photographs of the victims; (4) the State violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; (5) the trial court erred when it found that Trooper James Fillers was an expert witness; (6) the trial court erred when it admitted the written report of expert Dr. Davis because the report contained hearsay; (7) the trial court erred when it sentenced him; (8) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (9) the cumulative errors by the trial court constitute reversible error. After review and for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. We also remand the case for entry of an amended judgment reflecting that the Defendant’s DUI fourth offense conviction is merged with one of his aggravated vehicular homicide convictions.

The Petitioner, Timothy Evans, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to have the Petitioner “evaluated in order to present an insanity or diminished capacity defense”; (2) for failing to call “a psychological expert” to support the Petitioner’s duress defense; (3) for failing to “adequately prepare” the Petitioner to testify on cross-examination; and (4) for “depriving [the] Petitioner of a review of his duress [defense] by the appellate courts” by failing to include portions of the trial transcript in the appellate record. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Valentino L. Dyer, appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-403, -14-403. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in the following ways: (1) by failing to object to the State’s deficient notice seeking enhanced punishment, thereby causing the Petitioner to be confused regarding the State’s plea offer and factoring into his decision to reject the fifteen-year offer; (2) by failing to negotiate a more favorable plea offer from the State due to his “improper understanding of the Petitioner’s criminal convictions”; (3) by failing to prepare the Petitioner to testify at trial; (4) by failing to visit the crime scene; (5) by failing to object to two photographs of the machete used during the break-in; (6) by failing to argue that the victim did not suffer serious bodily injury; (7) by failing to discuss with the Petitioner “any mitigating factors or the sentencing hearing” prior to the hearing itself; (8) by failing to subpoena or call witnesses on the Petitioner’s behalf at the sentencing hearing; and (9) “all other reasons set forth in the petition and amended petition for post-conviction relief.” Following a review of the record, all but one of the Petitioner’s issues are waived due to an inadequate brief, and the single issue properly presented for review lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This case involves a post-divorce petition seeking military retirement benefits not allocated at the time of the divorce. The trial court awarded Theresa Aileen Blount (Wife) the requested benefits over the objection of her former spouse, Howard Paul Blount, III (Husband). The trial court also awarded Wife attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,000. Husband appeals. Wife raises her own issues. She seeks additional attorney’s fees; an award of travel expenses; and a remand to the trial court for the purpose of calculating Wife’s entitlement in accordance with the “retained jurisdiction method.” We affirm the trial court’s order granting benefits. We remand the case to the trial court for the purpose of (1) determining the appropriate valuation method for calculating Wife’s benefits and (2) thereafter describing each party’s respective legal interest in Husband’s military pension.

This case involves an order by the trial court directing the personal representative of the Estate of James Hood Nichols (the Estate) to sell a portion of the real property of the Estate. James Hood Nichols (the deceased) died testate. He bequeathed annuities to his daughters, Connie Jane Nichols Cinder and Nan Nichols Jones (the beneficiaries). In the will, the deceased gave a $75,000 annuity to Connie Jane Nichols Cinder and a $50,000 annuity to Nan Nichols Jones. According to the final settlement filed by Richard N. Swanson and Earl Wayne Campbell (the co-executors), the net distributable probate estate is $8,712.01. The co-executors proposed to distribute that amount to the beneficiaries in proportion to the amount left to each beneficiary. The beneficiaries filed an objection to the proposed final settlement, asking the court to order the sale of a portion of the deceased’s real property in order to fund the annuities. Finding that the bequests to the beneficiaries are higher priority than other bequests and devises in the will, the trial court ordered the personal representative to sell a portion of the deceased’s real property sufficient to fund the annuities. The trial court also awarded the beneficiaries their attorney’s fees. The co-executors appeal. We affirm.