APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The trial court awarded the estate of Mona Small (“the Estate”) a judgment in the amount of $26,515 against appellants Kevin J. Elliott and Heather R. Elliott, based on its finding that the Elliotts converted that amount when Ms. Small was residing with them. Because the Elliotts’ brief was untimely filed and wholly fails to comply with the applicable Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal. We also grant the Estate’s request to find this appeal frivolous, and we remand to the trial court for a determination of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal to be awarded to the Estate.

Following a Knox County jury trial, Defendant, Bobby Hansard, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, three counts of attempted first degree murder, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant alleges that the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s opening statement after counsel referenced various prior bad acts of one of the victims, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial and his motion for a judgment of acquittal. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Keith Lamont Farmer (the “Petitioner”), an inmate in the West Tennessee State Penitentiary (“WTSP”), filed suit against Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC” or “the State”) after Petitioner received a disciplinary infraction. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Lauderdale County (the “trial court”) seeking review of the disciplinary proceedings. The State filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Petitioner’s case was barred by Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-812. The trial court granted the State’s motion, and Petitioner appealed to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In 2008, a Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Newt Carter, of aggravated rape and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-five years. Multiple filings ensued, the last of which was a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. The trial court held a hearing and denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his motion to reopen should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Joshua Beadle, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced him to serve twenty-five years and to community supervision for life. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves matters of alimony and valuation of marital property upon the divorce of the parties, who were married for twenty-four years. Following its valuation of certain marital assets, the trial court distributed the parties’ substantial marital assets in near-equal shares. The trial court awarded to the wife rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro based on its determinations that the wife had demonstrated a need for alimony and that the husband had the ability to pay. The husband has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s spousal support award in its entirety. We also affirm the trial court’s value placed on the husband’s medical practice. Exercising our discretion, we decline to award attorney’s fees to the wife on appeal.

In this appeal, we address principles governing the imposition of consecutive sentencing for “an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2) (2019). Quinton Devon Perry pleaded guilty to twenty-four counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor that took place during the years 2016 and 2017, stemming from the discovery that he had uploaded 174 images or videos comprising child pornography or child erotica to his electronic file sharing account. Although Mr. Perry had no prior criminal convictions, the trial court imposed partial consecutive sentencing after finding that he qualified as an offender whose record of criminal activity was extensive. A divided panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. State v. Perry, No. W2019-01553-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 2563039, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 22, 2021), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Nov. 18, 2021). The dissenting judge, citing a lack of proof that Mr. Perry engaged in a continuous course of downloading and uploading materials over the alleged time period, concluded that the record did not establish him as an offender whose record of criminal activity was extensive. Id. at *6–7 (McMullen, J., dissenting).1 Mr. Perry sought permission to appeal, arguing that the lower courts improperly found him to be an offender whose record of criminal activity was extensive based solely on the number of offenses to which he pleaded guilty. We accepted Mr. Perry’s appeal. In this opinion, we clarify certain principles for imposing consecutive sentencing under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(2) and set forth a non-exclusive list of considerations to aid determining whether a defendant qualifies as an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive. Based on our review, we have determined that the trial court adequately articulated the reasons for ordering consecutive sentencing on the record. Affording the trial court’s decision a presumption of reasonableness, we conclude that the trial court did not err in imposing partial consecutive sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident with Defendant and allegedly sustained personal injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Shelby County General Sessions Court but were unable to get personal service on Defendant. Ultimately, Plaintiffs issued service by publication. Defendant, having never been personally served, did not appear for trial in the General Sessions Court, and Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against her. The General Sessions Court judgment was not timely appealed and became final. Plaintiffs made a demand on Defendant's insurance carrier to pay the judgment. Counsel purporting to represent Defendant on behalf of her insurance carrier subsequently filed a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court. Plaintiffs objected to counsel's standing to appear on behalf of Defendant, but the Circuit Court granted the writ of certiorari and later granted counsel's motion to dismiss the case, finding that counsel had standing to litigate on behalf of Defendant pursuant to the court's interpretation of a contract of insurance that was not in evidence. We conclude that the trial court's conclusion as to standing was erroneous. Accordingly, we vacate the orders entered by the trial court in the proceedings and dismiss the writ. Tenn.

The Defendant, Elijah Garrison, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of first degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2018) (first degree murder); 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A) (2018) (unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon). The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus ten years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his first degree murder conviction because it was based on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant filed an objection to the probate of Decedent’s will, and Appellee, the Executrix of Decedent’s estate, filed a motion to dismiss the objection. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion, dismissed Appellant’s objection for lack of standing, and admitted Decedent’s will to probate. Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and also asserts that she received no notice of the hearing on Appellee’s motion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a custody dispute over two minor children, P.H. and V.H. (together, “the Children”). The Children’s mother, L.A.S. (“Mother”), lives in Nevada, while the Children live primarily in Tennessee with their father, C.W.H. (“Father”), and his wife (“Stepmother”). Father is the primary residential parent, and Mother sees the Children over the summers and during their breaks from school. On June 12, 2020, Mother filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan and for contempt in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (the “juvenile court”). Mother asked to be named primary residential parent. Following a three-day bench trial, the juvenile court dismissed Mother’s petition. The juvenile court determined that no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custod had occurred. Mother timely appealed to this Court. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we discern no error and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

Pro se appellant appeals the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant following a bench trial. Because we conclude that Appellant has waived all arguments by failing to file a substantially compliant brief or a transcript or statement of the evidence, we affirm.

Petitioner, Timothy Allen Johnson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Kevin Owens, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted first degree murder, a class A felony, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101(a)(2), 39-13- 202(a)(1), 39-17-1324(b)(1). On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Specifically, he contends that the State’s evidence was inadequate to establish his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jamarcus Dequan Murdock, Defendant, was convicted in a jury trial of two counts of aggravated robbery. He also pled guilty to separate charges of robbery and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed ten-year sentences for each aggravated robbery conviction and a six-year sentence for the robbery conviction. The trial court ordered that the sentences for two of the aggravated robbery convictions run consecutively to each other and concurrently to the sentences for the remaining convictions for an effective twentyyear sentence. On direct appeal, this court held that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to support consecutive sentences based upon the dangerous offender category and remanded the case to the trial court. See State v. Jamarcus Dequan Murdock, No. W2020-00244-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 1423125, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 15, 2021). On remand, the trial court again imposed partial consecutive sentences. Defendant asserts that the trial court again erred in imposing partial consecutive sentences. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This negligence action arises from the collision of Plaintiff/Appellee’s Mercedes convertible with a tractor-trailer operated by Defendant/Appellant in the scope of her employment. The trial court determined that Appellant was more than 50 percent at fault for the accident and apportioned 75 percent fault to Appellant and 25 percent fault to Plaintiff/Appellee. The trial court also determined that Defendant/Appellant employer was vicariously liable for the damages awarded. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a delinquent tax sale of land owned by a limited liability corporation, the managing member filed a motion to redeem the property pro se, signing only his own name. The trial court deemed admitted requests for admission propounded on purported redeemer individually after only the entity responded. Relying in part on the admissions, the trial court granted the tax sale purchaser’s motion to strike the attempt at redemption for lack of standing. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Tony Lee Light, was convicted in the Blount County Circuit Court of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse and second degree murder. The trial court merged the conviction of second degree murder into the conviction of first degree murder, and the jury chose to sentence him to life without parole. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to impeach his character. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Raymond Watison, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. 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. The Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to keep out hearsay evidence at the suppression hearing regarding how the Petitioner was established as the suspect, (2) insufficiently challenging the probable cause determination in this case, (3) not calling necessary witnesses at the suppression hearing, and (4) failing to make contemporaneous objections at the trial. Additionally, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by entering a written order that contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law. We reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in the petition, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Andre Bowen, Petitioner, claims that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Discerning no error, we affirm the dismissal.

The defendant, Roberto Digma, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his eight-year sentence for possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.