APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua Smith, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to a term of ten years imprisonment at the Department of Correction to be served at thirty percent. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court improperly denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Singer brought action for breach of contract against musical tribute show Producer. Producer did not attend trial and his counsel moved to withdraw immediately prior to trial. The court heard Singer’s evidence and entered judgment in Singer’s favor. Producer retained new counsel and moved for a new trial on the basis of excusable neglect.  The trial court denied the motion for a new trial and Producer appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Marvin McCall, entered a plea of nolo contendere to theft in case no. CR5297.  The trial court sentenced him to four years to be served in Community Corrections.  In case no. CR5699, the Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated burglary and aggravated assault.  The trial court sentenced him to four years in Community Corrections to be served consecutively to case no. CR5297.  After two subsequent arrests and the issuance of a probation violation warrant, the trial court revoked probation and ordered incarceration for the remainder of the Defendant’s sentence.  On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred: (1) when it failed to dismiss the violation of probation warrant, and (2) when it revoked an expired probation sentence.  After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we reverse and dismiss the trial court’s judgment revoking the Defendant’s expired probation sentence in case no. CR5297, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment in case no. CR5699.
 

This case involves post-divorce modification of a parenting schedule. Mother sought modification of the schedule after moving to Florida to be nearer to Father and the minor child. The trial court considered the case and modified the schedule to allow Mother more time with the child. Father appeals, arguing that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, that the trial court should have declined jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens, that Mother failed to prove a material change in circumstances, and that the modification was not in the child’s best interests. We affirm the trial court’s rulings with regard to jurisdiction, application of the forum non conveniens doctrine, and a material change in circumstances. However, because the trial court failed to make a finding that modification was in the child’s best interests, we vacate the remainder of the order and remand to the trial court for the entry of an order containing appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether modification is in the child’s best interests. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

This is the second appeal of this property dispute involving the Parties. The Sellicks initially brought suit to determine whether the Millers had obtained an easement to use Farm Road for the benefit of Parcel 5.07. The Sellicks also complained that concrete slabs encroached upon the agreed-upon Farm Road easement for the benefit of Parcel 5.02. This court held that the Millers did not have an easement to use Farm Road for the benefit of Parcel 5.07. Upon remand, the Parties reached a settlement agreement in which the Millers agreed to a removal of the portion of their driveways on Parcel 5.02 that encroached upon Farm Road. Shortly thereafter, the Millers filed a petition for contempt, alleging that the Sellicks had violated the agreement. The Sellicks responded in kind by filing their own petition for contempt. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a mutual restraining order, found Mr. Miller in contempt for failing to remove a gate as agreed, ordered Mr. Sellick to undertake repairs to the driveways owned by the Millers, and disposed of the remaining issues between the Parties. The Sellicks appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner-Appellant, Randy Mills, appeals the partial denial of his “Motion to Reopen Post[-]Conviction Petition and Other Relief.”  On appeal, he argues:  (1) the trial court erred in denying him a new trial on all of the charges in this case for which he was convicted; (2) the general sessions counsel’s and trial counsel’s 2003 post-conviction testimony regarding his admission of guilt as to some of the charges is inadmissible as substantive evidence of his guilt on retrial; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to adjudicate the merits of his state and federal constitutional law claims.  Although not raised by the Petitioner, the State argues that the trial court’s agreed order, which was entered after the filing of the Petitioner’s notice of appeal, is null and void because the court no longer had jurisdiction of the case.  Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment granting a new trial in count 2, the conviction for rape of a child–penile penetration, in light of the newly discovered DNA evidence; however, we reverse the judgment denying a new trial on the remaining charges for which he was convicted, and we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an order also granting the Petitioner a new trial on counts 1, 4,  5, and 6.

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on Michaela V.; Michael V., Jr.; and Tyler V., the minor children (“Children”) of Michael V., Sr. (“Father”). The Children were taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on August 22, 2008. On January 5, 2011, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. Following a bench trial held on October 12, 2011, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to provide financial support during the four months preceding the filing of the petition. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm.

Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s second Motion to Alter or Amend, and Plaintiff appealed to this Court. We dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an appropriate notice of appeal. Plaintiff then filed a third Motion to Alter or Amend in the trial court, which the trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a second appeal to this Court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Defendant-Appellant, Tina Woods Butler, entered pleas of nolo contendere to six counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, Class D felonies, and ten counts theft of property valued over $500 but less than $1,000, Class E felonies. See T.C.A. §§39-14-103, -105(a). After denying her request for judicial diversion, the trial court sentenced Butler as Range I, standard offender to two-year sentences for each of the Class D felonies and to one-year sentences for each of the Class E felonies. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of two years on community corrections. On appeal, Butler argues that the trial court erred in denying her judicial diversion. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Shakendra N. Boggs (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of theft over $500 but under $1,000, with no agreement as to her sentence other than that she would be sentenced as a Range I offender.  After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve eighteen months in split confinement with 104 days to be served in jail on 52 consecutive weekends.  The Defendant has appealed, alleging error in both the length and manner of service of her sentence.  Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Elmi Abdulahi Abdi (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a Davidson County jury of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, consecutive to a previous sentence.  The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied his petition for post-conviction relief.  The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to compel the production of crime scene surveillance video; (2) failing to adequately challenge the admission of video clips of his interview with police; and (3) failing to file a timely motion for new trial.  After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we hold that the Petitioner’s trial counsel was deficient in failing to file a timely motion for new trial and that the Petitioner was presumptively prejudiced by that deficiency.  Therefore, we grant the Petitioner a delayed appeal.

Christopher Lee Hall (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means.  The plea bargain provided that the Defendant would be sentenced to nine years as a Range I standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court.  After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement.  The Defendant has appealed, arguing that the trial court should have granted him probation. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Sparta Bail Bonds, a/k/a Freedom Bail Bonds, appeals the Putnam County Criminal Court’s denial of its petition to obtain bonding privileges.  The Appellant contends that the evidence did not support the trial court’s denial.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This Court granted an extraordinary appeal in this health care liability action to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to waive the contiguous state requirement for a testifying expert witness set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated §29-26- 115(b). Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Charles Bradford Stewart, appeals from his Montgomery County Circuit Court jury conviction of vehicular assault, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.  Because the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is procedurally barred and because the defendant raises no other challenge to the judgment of the trial court, we affirm.

On December 2, 2005, the Defendant, Roderick Chadwick, was indicted for selling less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony; possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony; possession of not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, a Class E felony; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor.  See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-603(a), -17-417, -17-425.  The State later dismissed all counts of the indictment except for the counts for selling less than .5 grams of cocaine and evading arrest.  Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of both counts.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fifteen years.  On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for selling less than .5 grams of cocaine; and (2) that the trial court erred by not allowing the Defendant to cross-examine the undercover officer involved in the drug buy about “inaccurate testimony” he had given in a prior unrelated criminal prosecution.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a dispute over the enforcement of guaranty agreements in light of a bankruptcy. Marlin Financial & Leasing Corp. (“Marlin”) sued Lucius E. Burch, III (“Burch”) in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) alleging breach of contract, conversion, and, unjust enrichment. Marlin asserted that Burch owed money under certain guaranty agreements he had signed for leases entered into by Marlin. After a trial, the Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Marlin appeals to this Court. We hold that, given the Bankruptcy Court’s orders deeming all claims related to the leases at issue satisfied, the Trial Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Appellant, Mario Johnson, entered guilty pleas without recommended sentences to five counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III persistent offender to fifteen years for each count and ordered two of the five sentences to be served consecutively to each other, for an effective sentence of thirty years at forty-five percent release eligibility. Appellant now challenges the trial court’s determination with regard to sentence alignment. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Timothy Eugene Kelly, Jr., was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of three counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies, and one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor.  See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-402; 39-13-101 (2010).  The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eighteen years for the aggravated robbery convictions in Counts 1 and 4, twenty years for the aggravated robbery conviction in Count 3, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the assault conviction.  The court ordered the Defendant to serve Counts 1 and 3 consecutively, for an effective thirty-eight-year sentence.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and (2) the trial court erred in sentencing him.  We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves the latest in a series of attempts by Mother to recover child support arrearages owed by Father. In this particular case, Mother sought to register and enforce in Tennessee a 2007 Arkansas judgment for approximately $47,000 in child support arrearages. The trial court entered an order registering the Arkansas judgment in Tennessee. However, it granted a declaratory judgment motion filed by Father, declaring that the Arkansas judgment was unenforceable in Tennessee due to the ten-year statute of limitations for enforcing judgments found at Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-110. Mother appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant (along with several co-defendants) was indicted on eight counts of a ten-count indictment: one count of first degree murder; one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder; one count of arson; two counts of tampering with evidence; one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more; one count of abuse of a corpse; and one count of credit card fraud. Prior to trial, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress three statements given to police after the defendant was “voluntarily” detained. The State sought and received permission to file an interlocutory appeal. Upon review, we conclude that the defendant was, in fact, arrested when she was detained but that her arrest was supported by probable cause. We further conclude that the defendant was given sufficiently prompt judicial review of the officer’s probable cause determination. For these reasons, the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Wesley Chad Bouterie, appeals the Hardin County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for convictions for selling one-half gram or more of methamphetamine and selling four oxycodone tablets and ordering his effective eight-year sentence into execution. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Darnell White, was indicted by the Dyer County Grand Jury for aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, he was convicted of the offense as stated in the indictment. As a result, he was sentenced to ten-years as a Range I, standard offender. Petitioner did not seek a direct appeal of his conviction. Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed. After a review, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The defendant, Michael Alvin Harding, appeals his Maury County Circuit Court jury convictions of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, and that the 15-year sentence was excessive.  Discerning no error, we affirm.
 

An employee died from “traumatic asphyxiation” after a front-end loader accidentally pushed him into a trailer loaded with garbage. The employee’s widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits. The employer denied that the employee was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and raised the affirmative defenses of willful misconduct and willful failure to use a safety device. Following a trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the employer, and the employee’s widow appealed.  We affirm.