APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A homeowner appeals from a jury verdict in a breach of contract action. The homeowner complains of errors in the conduct of the trial, including the exclusion of key evidence. Because the homeowner did not present these issues to the trial court in a motion for a new trial, the issues are waived. And we affirm the judgment.

A property owner filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of metropolitan government ordinances that prevented him from obtaining a permit for a short-term rental property with more than four bedrooms. We have concluded that the property owner’s claims are barred by res judicata.

A Cheatham County jury convicted the Petitioner, Aaron Ostine, of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence, and this court affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. Ostine, No. M2013-00467-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2442988 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 28, 2014), perm. app. granted (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2014). The Petitioner filed a Rule 11 application, pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Our supreme court granted the application and remanded the case for our reconsideration in light of its holding in State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554 (Tenn. 2014). After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to those in Jackson, this court again affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Ostine, No. M2013-00467- CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 7009058, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 12, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016). The Petitioner timely filed for post-conviction relief based upon claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner appeals, maintaining that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and asserts that the cumulative effect of his trial counsel’s errors entitle him to relief. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

Defendant, Dustin William Russell, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, reckless endangerment by discharging a firearm into an occupied habitation, and three counts of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon.  Defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty years.  On appeal, Defendant claims the trial court gave an improper instruction for second degree murder, the evidence was insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction, and the trial court abused its discretion in its application of an enhancement factor and in its failure to make findings to support partial consecutive sentencing on the dangerous offender factor.  Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Petitioner, Jonathan W. Stephenson, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his fifth petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Petitioner challenges his convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and the legality of his death plus sixty-years effective sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

In this case involving termination of a mother’s and father’s parental rights to their minor child, the trial court found that three statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights and two statutory grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Both the mother and father have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Before taking his own life, the Defendant’s husband shot and killed another individual, resulting in a civil suit brought by the victim’s family.  An insurance company with whom the husband had a policy brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Defendant’s husband’s actions were not covered by the insurance he had obtained.  A sheriff’s deputy tried to serve process.  The Defendant, however, was not home, and the deputy left a contact card.  The Defendant called the deputy, and, after discussion, she instructed the deputy to leave the documents with a particular individual at her home.  The deputy followed these instructions.  The Defendant did not respond to the suit and a default was entered.  Months later, the Defendant, alleging the deputy failed to effectuate valid service of process, sought to have the default set aside.  The trial court disagreed and declined to set aside the default.  The Defendant then asked the trial court to alter its order, asserting for the first time that she was not a proper party to the Company’s suit.  The trial court declined.  The Defendant appealed.  We affirm.

A driver was injured in a car accident with an uninsured motorist and filed a negligence suit against the uninsured motorist. The driver served her uninsured motorist insurance carrier with notice of the lawsuit. After the driver could not obtain service of process on the uninsured motorist, the case proceeded against the insurance carrier. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of the driver. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, awarding damages to the driver. The trial court denied the driver’s post-trial motion for prejudgment interest based upon its determination that the suit was a personal injury action and that, therefore, the court could not award prejudgment interest. We have concluded that the trial court erred in classifying the claim against the insurance carrier as a personal injury action. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying prejudgment interest and remand for a determination of the proper amount of prejudgment interest.

The Defendant, Robert Andrew Dunnivant, pled guilty to aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, and two counts of domestic assault. As part of the plea, the parties agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to an effective term of ten years but that the trial court would determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied an alternative sentence and imposed a sentence of full confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted an alternative sentence. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Latarius Curry, Defendant, on one count each of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. A jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective 22-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Having reviewed the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on June 6, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until July 16, 2024, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

A putative father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a child. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of several statutory grounds for termination. It also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest. Following thorough review, we conclude that not all grounds for termination were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Still, we affirm the termination of parental rights.

Danny Royce Murphy, Defendant, was convicted of driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license and driving without evidence of financial responsibility after representing himself at trial. The trial court ordered a six-month sentence, with 30 days to serve and the remainder on Community Corrections. Defendant filed several post-trial motions, including a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motions and this appeal ensued. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and breach of contract to enforce a purchase and sale agreement, which was allegedly entered by and between Appellants and Appellees. In their answer, Appellees asserted, as an affirmative defense, that Appellants had no standing to enforce the contract because they were not parties to it. On Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Appellants were not parties to the contract and had no standing to bring an action to enforce it. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The trial court granted Appellees’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03 motion to dismiss Appellant’s lawsuit for unjust enrichment because Appellant did not exhaust its remedies in contract. We affirm.

Kirsten Williams, Petitioner, was convicted of aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary in a joint trial with a co-defendant. State v. Williams, No. W2021- 01071-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 17728221, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 16, 2022), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years in incarceration at 100 percent service rate. Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the postconviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Bedford County jury convicted the Defendant, Forrest Ray Hester, of delivery of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine based upon a theory of criminal responsibility, possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, and possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the possession convictions and imposed an effective sentence of sixteen years to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his co-defendant’s guilty plea to sale/delivery of methamphetamine based on a theory of criminal responsibility precludes the Defendant’s conviction for the same offense based on a theory of criminal responsibility. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Plaintiff sought specific performance related to a real estate transaction. The trial court denied relief, concluding that the series of papers introduced by the Plaintiff as a purported real estate contract between the parties did not constitute a valid contract. Furthermore, the trial court concluded that specific performance was inappropriate because the court could not discern the terms of the purported contract. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal arises out of a contract dispute between Lakeway Real Estate2, LLC f/k/a Lakeway Real Estate, LLC (“Lakeway”), and ERA Franchise Systems, LLC f/k/a ERA Franchise Systems, Inc. (“ERA”). Lakeway filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Jefferson County (the “trial court”) seeking declaratory relief and a ruling that a noncompete provision within a Franchise Agreement (the “Agreement”) is unenforceable as a matter of law. ERA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the Venue and Jurisdiction clause (the “Clause”) of the Agreement makes the trial court an improper venue. The trial court granted ERA’s motion to dismiss. Because the Clause, when read in context with no disproportionate emphasis on one portion, provides permissive, but not mandatory, jurisdiction and venue in New Jersey, we reverse.

Lonnie Elmore (“Decedent”) died on July 5, 2020, a few weeks after being treated by Travis Mills, CRNA, (“Mills”) an employee of Lakeway Regional Anesthesia Services, PLLC (“Lakeway”) (collectively “Defendants”) and Angelo J. Sorce, M.D., (“Sorce”), an employee of Tennessee Valley Orthopaedics, LLC (“TVO”).1 On July 2, 2021, Robert Elmore, as Executor of the Estate of Lonnie Elmore, (“Plaintiff”) sent pre-suit notice to Defendants. Relying on the 120-day extension provided for by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 26-121(c), Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging wrongful death on November 1, 2021, in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), claiming that the accrual of Plaintiff’s cause of action arose no later than June 21, 2020, and Plaintiff, accordingly, provided pre-suit notice past the one-year statute of limitations, rendering his complaint untimely. The Trial Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, followed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. 

In this divorce, the husband claims the trial court erred in its classification of certain separate property and valuation of certain marital property. The trial court found that the equity held in the marital home attributable to the sale of property owned by the wife prior to the marriage had been transmuted into marital property, but then treated that property as separate despite its initial finding due to what it believed the wife’s intent would have been under an alternative set of circumstances. The husband argues this was improper. The trial court also valued certain marital property, including the home and Wife’s 401(k) retirement account, as of several years prior to the divorce proceedings. The trial court reasoned that the divorce proceedings had been delayed by the husband’s criminal proceedings and subsequent incarceration arising from his theft of funds from the wife during the marriage. Husband filed this appeal. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Queshan Brooks, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Thomas Dequan Solomon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court
revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in
confinement. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by basing its
decision merely on proof of alleged criminal conduct prior to the filing of formal charges
and without considering his history of supervision while on probation. After review, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tipton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Howard Jefferson Atkins, of first degree premeditated murder in 2000, and the trial court imposed a life sentence. The Petitioner later applied for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because the juvenile court did not make the necessary statutory findings to transfer his case to the circuit court. The habeas corpus court summarily denied the application, finding that the Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for relief. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

After suffering an injury, patient alleged that in-patient facility was negligent in failing to inform medical transportation company of his physical limitations prior to his discharge from the facility. In response to the facility’s summary judgment motion, patient relied on the testimony of an “expert in passenger ground transportation.” The trial court found that issues of fact remained as to patient’s ambulation needs, but granted summary judgment as to standard of care and breach because patient’s expert was not competent to testify under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, and the common knowledge exception did not apply. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.