APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

EverBank, the assignee and current owner of a promissory note secured by a previously recorded second-priority deed of trust, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), which was identified in the second-priority deed of trust as the beneficiary of record and “nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns,” filed this action to set aside a foreclosure sale and to recover damages from the trustee acting pursuant to the first-priority deed of trust for failure to identify MERS as an interested party in the notice of the foreclosure sale as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-104. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims against the trustee holding that the plaintiffs failed to record their interests in the property in order to put creditors or any purchasers on notice. The trial court also refused to set aside the foreclosure sale upon the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the new owners were bona fide purchasers for value; thus, the trial court found that they acquired the property free and clear of any unrecorded interests. We have determined that MERS’ interest was of record and that the trustee had an affirmative duty to identify MERS as an interested party in the notice of the foreclosure sale pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101 et seq., yet the trustee failed to do so. Accordingly, MERS is entitled to seek restitution from the trustee pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-107, which provides that any person referenced in Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 who fails to comply with this chapter is “liable to the party injured by the noncompliance, for all damages resulting from the failure.” As for setting aside the foreclosure sale, although MERS has standing to bring the claim, it failed to state a claim upon which to set aside the sale, for the mere failure of a trustee to comply with the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101 et seq. is insufficient to set aside a foreclosure sale. We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of the claim to set aside the foreclosure sale, reverse the dismissal of MERS’ claim against the trustee to recover its damages, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The judgment from which the pro se appellants, Frances Hamby and Stephen Hamby, seek to appeal was entered on February 12, 2013. The Notice of Appeal was filed more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the judgment. The appellee, The Bank of New York Mellon, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss.

This appeal is from an order certified to be a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The order dismissed all of the claims made by the Plaintiff, SITEWORX, LLC (“SITEWORX”), against the Defendants, J & M Incorporated, Henson Construction Services, Inc., Clay Williams & Associates, Inc., Roane County, Tennessee, and Western Surety Company (“Defendants”). The order left unresolved the claims between Third-Party Plaintiff, J & M Incorporated, and Third-Party Defendant, Brian Mullins (“Mullins”). Because only Mullins appealed from the judgment and the judgment is not adverse to him, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Appellant, Jeffery Yates, 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 in summarily denying his motion because his motion stated a colorable claim for relief. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Kevin Daws, filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily dismissed the Appellant’s motion, and he appealed. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the Appellant’s motion fails to present a colorable claim that his sentences were illegal. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of the motion.

Petitioner, Alvin Malone, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of first degree felony murder, one count of first degree premeditated murder, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The first degree murder conviction merged with one of the felony murder convictions, and Petitioner was sentenced to two life sentences and two twenty-year sentences, all running consecutively. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Alvin Malone, No. W2007-01119-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 813, at *73-74 (Oct. 2, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2009). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel both at trial and on direct appeal. After several evidentiary hearings over an extended period of time, the post-conviction court granted relief in part and denied it in part. As it relates to this appeal, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner had not established deficient performance as to trial counsel’s failure to call two proposed alibi witnesses. The post-conviction court held that Petitioner was not entitled to relief from his convictions. However, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner was prejudiced by both trial and appellate counsel’s failure to object to or raise on appeal the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences based on the dangerous offender category without making the requisite findings under State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995). The post-conviction court granted relief in the form of a new sentencing hearing solely on the issue of consecutive sentences. Both the State and Petitioner appealed. Upon our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s decision on the issue of the alibi witnesses. However, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was prejudiced by trial and appellate counsel’s failure to raise the Wilkerson issue. Therefore, we reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment on that matter and reinstate Petitioner’s sentences as they were originally ordered by the trial court.

Petitioner, Edward Porecca, filed, through counsel, a “Petition for Relief from Conviction and Sentence” attacking his conviction for rape. He specifically alleged that the petition was instituted pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-[102] (for post-conviction relief) and pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-308 (for modification, removal, or release from a condition of probation). The twenty-four (24) page petition, plus exhibits, generally alleged that he was entitled to relief under T.C.A. § 40-30-308 because an “exile from Tennessee” condition of his probation is unconstitutional and therefore should be removed. As to grounds for postconviction relief, Petitioner asserted that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied relief and dismissed the petition. On appeal, Petitioner has abandoned his claim for post-conviction relief by not presenting that as an issue on appeal. As to the claim that Petitioner is entitled to statutory relief pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-308, we conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Petitioner has failed to show in this record that an “exile from Tennessee” condition exists. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted the defendant, William Darelle Smith, of first degree (premeditated) murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, this court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.  The defendant appealed a single issue to the Tennessee Supreme Court: that his right to an impartial jury was compromised because the trial court did not hold a hearing after the discovery, during jury deliberations, that a juror was not only acquainted with one of the State’s witnesses but had sent the witness a communication through Facebook complimenting her on her testimony.  The Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had erred in refusing to hold a hearing and remanded the case.  After a hearing during which the juror and the witness testified regarding the nature of both their relationship and the communication, the trial court again denied the defendant a new trial.  The defendant appeals.  We conclude that the State sufficiently rebutted any presumption of prejudice raised by the juror’s extrajudicial communication or by his concealment of his acquaintance with the witness, and accordingly we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Alvin Upchurch, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court to serve 12 years in confinement. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is whether the sentence imposed was excessive. Having reviewed the record before us, we conclude that Defendant’s sentence was proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Defendant, William Edward Arnold, Jr., was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for three counts of aggravated sexual battery and three counts of rape of a child for acts that took place while Defendant was a mentor for the victim through Big Brothers Big Sisters.  Prior to trial, Defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior sexual knowledge pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412.  The trial court granted the motion in part but prohibited the introduction of any extrinsic evidence at trial.  At the conclusion of the proof at trial, the trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal on two counts of aggravated sexual battery, finding them “impossible” under the facts as presented to the jury.  The jury convicted Defendant of the remaining charges: one count of aggravated sexual battery and three counts of rape of a child.  The trial court denied the motion for new trial and sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-five years.  On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal as to the counts for which he was found guilty, the denial of the motion for new trial, and the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412.  After a thorough review of the record, the applicable authorities, and the issues, we determine the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.  Further, we determine that the trial court properly determined that specific instances of conduct of prior sexual behavior of the victim were not admissible under Rule 412(c)(4).  Additionally, we agree with the trial court’s determination that due process permitted the victim to be subject to cross-examination, limited by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608.  Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Appellant, Sean Blake, pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and robbery. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily dismissed because appellant’s sentences had expired. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion because an illegal sentence may be challenged at any time pursuant to Rule 36.1. The State concedes that this case should be reversed and remanded to the trial court. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this accelerated interlocutory appeal from the denial of a recusal motion, the newly-elected trial court denied a recusal motion on the basis that he continued to represent one of the parties to the litigation in unrelated matters while winding down his law practice. The opposing parties filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because this situation creates an appearance of impropriety, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a dispute over child custody. Charles W. Hendricks (“Father”) and Lori A. Smith (“Mother”) entered into an agreed permanent parenting plan concerning their two minor children (“the Children”). Less than two weeks after entry of the plan, Father filed a motion for custody of the Children in the Juvenile Court for Hamilton County (“the Juvenile Court”) alleging that the parenting plan had been procured by fraud as Mother had not disclosed that she worked as a licensed prostitute in Nevada. The Magistrate found a material change in circumstances and that it was in the best interest of the Children for Father to have custody. Mother appealed to the Juvenile Court. After a trial, the Juvenile Court found a material change in circumstances based on Mother’s having worked as a prostitute and her having concealed that fact, as well as Mother’s hostility to Father and the Children’s stepmother. The Juvenile Court entered a permanent parenting plan designating Father as primary residential parent of the Children. Mother appealed to this Court. Because the Juvenile Court did not conduct a best interest analysis, we vacate the judgment of the Juvenile Court and remand for further proceedings as necessary.

Appellant, Cedric Taylor, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony, for which he received an effective sentence of eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Darius Jones, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, reckless endangerment, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. The jury sentenced the Defendant to life with the possibility of parole on the first degree felony murder charge. Following the jury’s sentence, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the first degree felony murder conviction. The trial court then sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of forty-nine years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days on the remaining counts, to run consecutively to the life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions for second degree murder, first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and both counts of aggravated kidnapping. Because we hold that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions on all counts, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an interlocutory appeal regarding the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit following a shooting that occurred on December 24, 2011, outside Club Fathom in Chattanooga, a youth outreach ministry operated by two of the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied their motions, and the defendants sought and were granted an interlocutory appeal. We determine that the court erred in failing to grant summary judgment to the defendants regarding the plaintiffs’ negligence claims. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court. We remand the case for entry of summary judgment regarding the plaintiffs’ negligence claims and for a determination regarding the remaining lease issue.

Father brought suit against Son in general sessions court for repayment of certain alleged debts. After Father’s case was dismissed, he appealed to circuit court, which also dismissed Father’s claims after a trial.  Based on the record on appeal, sufficient facts exist to support the trial court’s determination, and the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

This is an appeal from a three-day divorce trial. The trial court classified and valued the parties’ assets and divided the marital estate. The court awarded the wife $2,000 per month in transitional alimony for a period of 14 months, and it denied the parties’ requests for attorney’s fees. The wife appeals, challenging the trial court’s classification and valuation of certain assets, the alimony award, and the trial court’s decision to deny her request for attorney’s fees. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Plaintiff/Appellee Mark Andrew Miller (“Father”) filed a petition for contempt against Defendant/Appellant Annie Elizabeth Miller(“Mother”). After conducting a hearing, the trial court found Mother guilty of two counts of criminal contempt. Mother appealed asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter or, alternatively, that the evidence did not support a finding that she acted willfully. Although we conclude that the trialcourthad jurisdiction to adjudicate Father’s petition for contempt,we agree with Mother that the contempt convictions should be overturned. We reverse.

Defendant, William Edward Arnold, Jr., was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for three counts of aggravated sexual battery and three counts of rape of a child for acts that took place while Defendant was a mentor for the victim through Big Brothers Big Sisters.  Prior to trial, Defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior sexual knowledge pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412.  The trial court granted the motion in part but prohibited the introduction of any extrinsic evidence at trial.  At the conclusion of the proof at trial, the trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal on two counts of aggravated sexual battery, finding them “impossible” under the facts as presented to the jury.  The jury convicted Defendant of the remaining charges: one count of aggravated sexual battery and three counts of rape of a child.  The trial court denied the motion for new trial and sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-five years.  On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal as to the counts for which he was found guilty, the denial of the motion for new trial, and the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412.  After a thorough review of the record, the applicable authorities, and the issues, we determine the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.  Further, we determine that the trial court properly determined that specific instances of conduct of prior sexual behavior of the victim were not admissible under Rule 412(c)(4).  Additionally, we agree with the trial court’s determination that due process permitted the victim to be subject to cross-examination, limited by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608.  Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A jury convicted the defendant, William Darelle Smith, of first degree (premeditated) murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison.  On appeal, this court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.  The defendant appealed a single issue to the Tennessee Supreme Court: that his right to an impartial jury was compromised because the trial court did not hold a hearing after the discovery, during jury deliberations, that a juror was not only acquainted with one of the State’s witnesses but had sent the witness a communication through Facebook complimenting her on her testimony.  The Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had erred in refusing to hold a hearing and remanded the case.  After a hearing during which the juror and the witness testified regarding the nature of both their relationship and the communication, the trial court again denied the defendant a new trial.  The defendant appeals.  We conclude that the State sufficiently rebutted any presumption of prejudice raised by the juror’s extrajudicial communication or by his concealment of his acquaintance with the witness, and accordingly we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal brought by the incarcerated father. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the father’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment and confinement under a sentence of ten years or more. The court further found that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. The father appeals. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Grover D. Cowart, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, or, in the alternative, motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that (1) the judgments of conviction in Case No. 50934 are void; (2) the judgment of conviction in Count 1 of Case No. 50934 is too “indefinite nd ambiguous” to run consecutively to his conviction in Case No. 49900; (3) the judgments of conviction in Counts 2 and 3 in Case No. 50934 are too “indefinite, uncertain, and ambiguous” to run consecutively to Count 4 in Case No. 49900; and (4) the sentences in Case No. 50934 are expired. Discerning no error, we affirm the summary dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition.

This is an irreconcilable differences divorce case. The trial court entered a final judgment of divorce that incorporated the parties’ mediated marital dissolution agreement. Shortly thereafter, Husband filed a motion to set aside or to alter or amend the final judgment, claiming he was under duress when he entered into the marital dissolution agreement and also claiming that the trial court was required to conduct a hearing before entering the final judgment. The trial court disagreed and denied Husband’s motion. We affirm.

An employee injured her shoulder while working for her employer and failed to make a meaningful return to work. The Claims Commission awarded the employee 55% permanent partial disability. The employer appealed, arguing that the award is excessive 1 because the Commissioner erred in assessing an 11% anatomical impairment rating and in applying a five times multiplier. We modify the Commissioner’s judgment, and affirm as modified.