APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Gavin Tyler Sheets, pled guilty to the offenses of vehicular homicide by recklessness and reckless endangerment. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for judicial diversion. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order an alternative sentence to incarceration. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Alvin Stewart, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and domestic assault and his effective twenty-year sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Ricky Durham, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal,
he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely without
a hearing on the merits of his claims. Following our review of the entire record and the
briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Kevin Allen Fleming, appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of three counts of
aggravated vehicular homicide and one count of driving under the influence, fourth
offense. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying
relief on his claims alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We
affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This is a contract dispute between a doctor and healthcare entities. The trial court awarded
summary judgment to the healthcare defendants, and the doctor appeals. We find no basis
to overturn the ruling of the trial court.

Antonio J. Hurt, Defendant, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment after a shooting at a barber shop. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi on the aggravated assault charge, and the State withdrew the reckless endangerment charge. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 8 years. Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed a pro se premature notice of appeal in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal in this Court. This Court waived the timely filing of the notice of appeal. On appeal, Defendant complains about the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of certain testimony of two witnesses, and statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument. After a review, we determine the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendant is not entitled to plain error review of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment form dismissing the count of the indictment for reckless endangerment.

The Defendant, Charles Larry Nichols, III, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence or clerical error, arguing that he was entitled to “street time” credit for the time he served on community corrections but was being supervised by state probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the Defendant was not entitled to the street time credit because he was on supervised probation, not community corrections. However, we remand the case to the trial court for correction of a separate clerical error in the amended judgment of conviction.

After pleading guilty on September 18, 2018, to three counts of aggravated rape in three separate cases, Patrick Marshall, Defendant, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 25 years at 100%.  Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he argued that his sentences were imposed in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-523(e)(3), ordering “aggravated rapists” to serve the entire sentence “if the offense occurs on or after July 1, 2012.”  It is undisputed that Defendant’s offense dates were before July 1, 2012.  The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) should allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits and entering an order directing the TDOC to allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits.  Defendant appealed.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgment forms that reflect Defendant is entitled to earn up to 15% sentence reduction credits.

In this custody case, Father appeals the trial court’s order allowing Mother to relocate, from
Tennessee to Virginia, with the parties’ daughter. Father also appeals the trial court’s order
charging him with costs of the child’s airline travel expenses and the guardian ad litem’s
attorney’s fees. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Mother and the guardian ad
litem’s respective requests for appellate attorneys’ fees are granted.

This case involves the denial of a claim for pandemic unemployment assistance and the subsequent administrative proceedings before the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The applicant failed to appear for his appeals hearing despite being notified of the hearing and the procedures required to participate in the hearing. The applicant’s request to reopen his case was denied because he failed to show good cause for his failure to attend. The applicant petitioned for judicial review in the chancery court. After finding substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits, the chancery court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. We affirm the chancery court’s decision

The Petitioner, Michael Brooks, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial
of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated
kidnapping, facilitation of aggravated robbery, assault, and aggravated burglary, for
which he is serving an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner
contends that the post-conviction court (1) erred in denying relief on his ineffective
assistance claims and (2) deprived him of due process in various respects. We affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Katherine Sanko (“Mother”) and Clinton Sanko (“Father”) dispute custody of two of their
four children. The children have lived primarily with Mother in Pennsylvania. However,
following a petition filed by Father to change custody, the trial court concluded that a
material change in circumstances occurred and that Father should be the primary residential
parent. Because the trial court determined that the material change in circumstances was
Mother’s relocation from Tennessee to Pennsylvania and this Court sanctioned the
relocation in a prior appeal, the ruling must be vacated and the case remanded.

Husband appeals the trial court’s classification, valuation, and division of real property in
this divorce action. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a complaint filed with the Claims Commission in which Christopher Turner (“Plaintiff”) seeks monetary damages for being incarcerated by the State of Tennessee (“the State”) beyond his sentence expiration date due to the failure of the Tennessee Department of Correction to award the pretrial jail credits and “street time” ordered by the criminal court as provided by his plea agreement. The amended complaint alleged “negligent care, custody, and control of persons,” “negligent care of personal property,” “negligent operation of machinery or equipment (computer systems),” and “breach of written contract.” The State filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims Commissioner granted the motion and dismissed the case on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because “the allegations in the Complaint fall outside the categories set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 9-8-307.” Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Commission’s determination that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. However, both parties contend, and we agree, that instead of dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, the Commission was required to transfer the case to the Board of Claims. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-402(a)(5) (“Claims not within the jurisdiction of the claims commission shall be sent to the board of claims.”). Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to transfer the case to the Board of Claims.

The Defendant, Willie Taylor, was convicted of rape, assault, and promoting prostitution.
The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred by not suppressing his
statement to the police and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for
rape and assault. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Keith Ward, of rape of a child, and the trial
court sentenced him to 32.5 years in prison, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner appealed,
and this court affirmed the conviction. The Petitioner then filed a petition for postconviction
relief in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
meet with him, review discovery with him, and develop an effective strategy before trial.
After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner
maintains his arguments. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s
judgment.

This appeal concerns a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. 495 Kings Stable, LLC
(“Plaintiff”), through its owner, filed a forcible entry and detainer warrant against Kimberly
Pate (“Defendant”) in the General Sessions Court for Shelby County. Plaintiff prevailed,
and Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”). After
a trial, the Trial Court ruled in Plaintiff’s favor, awarding it damages and attorney’s fees.
Defendant appeals arguing, among other things, that she was constructively evicted
because of conditions such as a raccoon in the house. Plaintiff raises separate issues. We
affirm the Trial Court’s determinations that Defendant was not constructively evicted and
that she breached the lease by failing to pay rent as required. Defendant did not afford
Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged problems. However, we find that the
Trial Court erred in declining to award Plaintiff damages for the remaining months of the
lease. We vacate the Trial Court’s award of damages and remand for the Trial Court to
award Plaintiff additional damages for the remaining months of the lease. In addition,
although Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under the lease, the Trial Court
erred by failing to apply the factors used for determining the reasonableness of attorney’s
fees found at Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5. We vacate the Trial Court’s award of attorney’s
fees to Plaintiff and remand for the Trial Court to award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s
fees—including reasonable post-trial and appellate attorney’s fees—applying the Tenn.
Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5 factors.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying
appellants’ motion for recusal. After considering the trial court’s ruling under the
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B de novo standard of review, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court denying recusal.

Defendant, Clinton W. Bryant, was charged with five counts of rape of a child. Following the State’s proof at trial, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on one of the five counts, and a jury convicted Defendant of the remaining four counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective fifty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever all five counts; that the trial court erred in denying a new trial based on an incomplete trial transcript; and that the cumulation of these errors warrant relief. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child on the grounds of (1) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (2) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (3) persistence of conditions; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility. He also challenges the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports the aforementioned grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

This appeal stems from a disputed strip of land along the edge of Norris Lake in Campbell County, Tennessee. The defendants in this case are lot owners of residential lakefront property in a planned development. The plaintiffs are the neighborhood home owner’s association and the company operating the marina in the development. The plaintiffs claim, based upon a note in the original plat map of the development, that a “one-foot buffer” zone along the defendants’ lots was reserved to the original developer. According to the plaintiffs, the marina company thus controls the shoreline in the area at issue and is at liberty, with permission from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to expand the existing marina. The defendants, on the other hand, dispute the existence of the buffer and claim that their lot boundaries extend right up to the shoreline. The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action, and, following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the plat note at issue did not reserve any interest in the disputed strip to the original developer. Plaintiffs appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court.

Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. After reviewing the
record, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence provided at trial to
support the ground of abandonment by failure to visit, but not the ground of substantial
noncompliance with a permanency plan. We also conclude that the trial court failed to
make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the ground of
failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody or financial responsibility
of the child. Thus, we (1) affirm the trial court’s finding that the ground of abandonment
by failure to visit was established, (2) reverse the trial court’s finding that the ground of
substantial noncompliance was established, and (3) vacate the trial court’s finding that the
ground of failure to manifest was established. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that
terminating Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child.

Defendant, Jerry Lynn Huskey, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his sentence of
probation for aggravated domestic assault, theft under $1,000, evading arrest, and resisting
arrest, and ordering him to serve his original six-year sentence in confinement. Following
our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

The Defendant, Claude James Feagins, appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for an
alternative sentence. The Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary, misdemeanor theft, felony
theft (Class D), and reckless endangerment. A six-year effective sentence resulted, with
the manner of serviced to be determined by the trial court at a sentencing hearing. After a
sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years of
incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion
when it ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. After review, we affirm the
trial court’s judgments.