APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal arises from the remodeling of a 1940’s era block and frame house. The agreement was based on a written estimate that described the work in very general terms. The issues on appeal are whether the contractor was liable for negligent construction of several areas of the work and, if so, the amount of damages. After a bench trial, the trial court found that there was barely a meeting of the minds, but, to the extent there was a contract, the contractor was to build a bedroom addition, a garage addition, and a sunroom; the contractor was to additionally replace the porches and repair the roof. Placing significant weight on the contractor’s testimony, the trial court found that the homeowner failed to carry his burden of proof on all claims but for the negligent construction of the sunroom ceiling and roof for which the trial court awarded $12,950 in damages. Both parties appeal. The homeowner contends the trial court erred in failing to find the contractor liable for negligent construction of other areas of the work and in failing to award damages commensurate with the cost of repair. The contractor contends the court erred in finding him liable for any negligent construction and in the calculation of damages awarded the homeowner. Finding the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the contractor was liable for negligent construction of the sunroom ceiling and roof and the award of damages in the amount of $12,950, we affirm that award. As for the claim the contractor was negligent in failing to install roof ventilation, the trial court made no findings regarding this claim, and, following a de novo review, we have determined the contractor was negligent and thus liable for failing to install the ventilation, and we award an additional $2,500 in damages. As for all other claims, we affirm. 

Appellant, James Robert Christensen, Jr., stands convicted of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor; promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class D felony; initiation of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class B felony; and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, Class D felonies. He received an effective sentence of three years‟ incarceration followed by eight years suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following our careful review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Termel Dowdy, pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony, and DUI, a Class A misdemeanor, in exchange for a ten-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court.  After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentence in confinement, which he now appeals.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this juvenile court proceeding, Father objects to a number of decisions made by the trial court concerning the parenting plan for the parties' child. We have determined that the trial court erred in its determinations regarding parenting time and child support. As to the latter, the trial court failed to consider Father's argument that Mother was underemployed, abused its discretion in its treatment of Mother's work-related child care expenses, and failed to properly calculate Father's income. We find no merit in any of the other issues raised by Father.

I agree that in this case, there are three separate state actions to consider when determining whether the evidence seized, as a result of the warrantless search of the defendant's residence, should have been suppressed. First, the investigators entered the defendant's property to conduct a “follow-up investigation,” without a search warrant, despite the defendant's “no trespassing” signs. Second, after smelling methamphetamine, Investigator Chunn forcibly entered the defendant's residence and conducted a brief sweep, during which he saw the firearms and some of the components for making methamphetamine, but did not see the active nor inactive labs. Third, after the defendant told officers that the lab was in the freezer, the investigators re-entered the defendant's residence and collected the active lab from the refrigerator and the inactive lab from the deep freezer. I believe the majority has correctly analyzed actions two and three. My disagreement with the majority only relates to the State's first action. My review of the record leads me to conclude that this defendant had clearly revoked any implied consent for the officers to come upon his property without a search warrant. Without lawfully being upon the premises, the second and third actions are void and the fruit of the poisonous tree.

The defendant, Jeremiah Thomas Sullivan, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to one count of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor involving one to twenty-four images, a Class C felony; eight counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor involving twenty-five or more images, a Class B felony; one count of sexual exploitation of a minor involving 100 or more images, a Class B felony; and two counts of solicitation of a minor, a Class B felony.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court used a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentencing to sentence him to an effective term of twenty-eight years in the Department of Correction.  On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by not merging the multiple convictions for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor involving twenty-five or more images into a single offense and by imposing an excessive sentence.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Larry Lunan and Susan Lunan appeal the order of the Law Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”) finding the Lunans not indigent. We previously affirmed the Trial Court's determination regarding indigency. As such, we find and hold that this issue is moot. We affirm

The defendant, Charles Derrick Belk, was convicted by an Obion County Circuit Court jury of simple possession, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, a Class E felony; Class C felony unlawful possession of a weapon; Class D felony unlawful possession of a weapon; and bringing a controlled substance into a penal institution, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective twelve-year sentence as a persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant should have been suppressed; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for bringing a controlled substance into a penal institution. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Mother had abandoned her children by failing to visit and engaging in conduct prior to incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the childre's welfare. The trial court then found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed. We affirm.

Petitioner, Jerry Rommell Gray, was convicted in Knox County of felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. Trial counsel filed a premature notice of appeal and an untimely motion for new trial. On direct appeal, this Court reviewed Petitioner’s issues, other than sufficiency of the evidence, for plain error. State v. Jerry Rommell Gray, No. E2010-00637-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 2870264, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 20, 2012). Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he sought a delayed appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically alleging that trial counsel’s failure to file a timely motion for new trial was presumptively prejudicial. The post-conviction court determined Petitioner was entitled to a delayed appeal but instructed Petitioner that he was not permitted to file an additional motion for new trial. Petitioner appealed to this Court, and we determined that the petition was untimely, reversed the decision of the post-conviction court, and remanded the matter for a hearing on whether due process should toll the statute of limitations. See Jerry Rommell Gray v. State, No. E2014-00849-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 6876184, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2014), perm. app. granted (Tenn. Apr. 13, 2015). Petitioner filed an application for permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11. The supreme court granted the application in light of the timeliness of the petition for post-conviction relief and remanded the case to this Court to consider whether the post-conviction court should have allowed Petitioner to file a second motion for a new trial when it granted him a delayed appeal. We determine the trial court improperly prohibited Petitioner from filing a motion for new trial upon grant of the delayed appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed and remanded. On remand, Petitioner is entitled to file a motion for new trial, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-113(a)(3).

The petitioner, Dimitrie Colbert, murdered his girlfriend and was subsequently charged with one count of first degree (felony) murder, one count of first degree (premeditated) murder, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of evading arrest in a motor vehicle. The State sought the death penalty. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the petitioner pled guilty to one count of first degree (felony) murder and one count of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class D felony. He received an agreed-upon life sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive four-year sentence for the evading arrest conviction. The petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, alleging that trial counsel performed deficiently in investigating his mental health and in advising him to accept the plea offer. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner has not established that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Marcus Deangelo Lee, argues that the trial court erred in denying him relief under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 after finding that his sentences were illegal and the illegality was a material component of the plea agreement. The State agrees with the defendant’s assertion. After review, we conclude that the trial court should have allowed the defendant the remedies available to him under Rule 36.1, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Something rather odd appears to be happening in this case and others similar to it. It appears that this defendant pled guilty to three offenses and received an agreed-to effective sentence of three years in December 1995. His sentences should have expired in December 1998. Yet this court has either denied or dismissed this defendant’s challenges to his convictions in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. And now in 2015, almost 20 years later, we feel obligated to set this defendant’s convictions aside as illegal and allow him to withdraw his 1995 guilty pleas because he did not receive twice as much time in jail as he should have in 1995. What makes this case stranger is that it is not the State who is asking for relief; rather, the defendant complains that he did not get consecutive sentencing when he should have in 1995. It is a rare case indeed when a defendant complains about not getting more time in jail. If the defendant was seeking the remedy of serving additional jail time because the law required it at the time he pled guilty, I would be happy to oblige him. But he is not. He is attempting to have his conviction set aside and presumably to have a trial, whereupon if he is found guilty, he will have to do additional time to that ordered in 1995. What, if anything, has changed to allow such a seemingly absurd result to take place?

The defendant, Rodney Williams, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in allowing recordings of his jailhouse phone calls into evidence; (3) the trial court erred in admonishing him in the presence of the jury; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Clinton Austin, was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-504 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years’ confinement at 100% service as a violent offender. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred by admitting the video recording of the victim’s forensic interview. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A former member of a law firm filed a complaint against the law firm in 2009 alleging breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the complaint because it was filed after the statute of limitations had run. The individual member filed another complaint in 2014, alleging a breach of the same contract. The law firm moved to dismiss the 2014 complaint on the basis that it was barred by res judicata. The trial court agreed and dismissed the 2014 complaint. The individual appealed the trial court‟s dismissal, and we affirm. We find the appeal is frivolous and grant the law firm‟s request for an award of its attorneys‟ fees and expenses.

A Cheatham County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Jimmy Lee Reeder, of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony.  After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective thirty-five-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that he was denied his right to an impartial jury, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the State’s case-in-chief and closing arguments, and that the trial court’s decision to exclude any evidence regarding prior allegations of sexual abuse of the victim deprived him of his right to present a defense.  Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 2005 Defendant, James Cauley, pled guilty to felony possession of less than 0.5 gram of cocaine, felony evading arrest, possession of contraband in a penal institution, and felony failure to appear.  Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant received an effective sentence of nine years to be served on probation, and other pending charges were dismissed.  In November 2012, a violation of probation warrant was issued.  Additional amendments to the warrant were issued in January 2013, April 2013, and September 2013.  At a hearing in October 2013, Defendant admitted that he had violated probation as alleged in the warrants.  Defendant asserted he was entitled to jail credit for time he served in a federal prison while he was on state probation.  The matter was continued to allow Defendant the opportunity to file a brief in support of his argument.  Another hearing was held in February 2014, and the trial court ordered the effective sentence to be served by incarceration.  Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the entire nine-year sentence at a time when he had less than one year remaining on probation and without giving him credit for the time he spent in federal custody.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves an automobile accident in which the plaintiff's vehicle was struck by an oncoming pick-up truck when the truck's driver attempted to turn left in front of the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck and back, as well as significant damage to her vehicle. The plaintiff brought this action, alleging negligence against the driver of the truck and negligent entrustment against the truck's owner, who was the defendant driver's brother-in-law. The plaintiff also alleged that the truck's owner was vicariously liable for damages under the family purpose doctrine. The driver of the truck was never successfully served with process and is not a party to this appeal. The defendant owner of the truck filed a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant owner. The plaintiff appeals. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Julius Wiel Walton, was convicted by a Robertson County jury of sexual battery for an incident involving his granddaughter.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years to be served on probation.  On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Ugenio Ruby-Ruiz, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in a 25-count indictment charging him with five counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor; six counts of aggravated sexual battery; ten counts of rape of a child; one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor; two counts of rape; and one count of solicitation of a minor. At the request of the State, the trial court dismissed one count of rape of a child; the solicitation of a minor count; and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the remaining offenses. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant received a total effective sentence of 121 years. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing; 2) that Defendant’s sentence is unjustly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offenses; and 3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the entire record, we conclude that Defendant has waived review of his convictions for sufficiency of the evidence. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the decision of the trial court that certain separated mineral interests reverted to the surface owner of the land due to abandonment by the purported holder of the mineral interests. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Martha Hungerford (“Plaintiff”) filed a petition seeking a declaration that Jimmy Hungerford was a child and legal heir at law of Thomas Hungerford. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing the Chancery Court for Hawkins County (“the Trial Court”) granted Plaintiff summary judgment. James E. Price (“Defendant”) appeals the grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff. We find and hold that Plaintiff failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 and, therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.