APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned his child by failure to visit. The court also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

The Defendant, Andrew James Skaalerud, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s probation revocation of the three-year sentence he received for his guilty-pleaded conviction for possession with intent to sell or to deliver alprazolam. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Derrick Lee Johnson, Defendant, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s judgment revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his probationary sentence of eight years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by improperly considering Defendant’s indicted charges instead of the ones for which he was ultimately convicted, and by failing to consider whether alternative sentencing would serve the ends of justice. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court found multiple counts of criminal contempt stemming from Husband’s failure to submit to court-ordered drug and alcohol testing. It fined him $7,100.00 and sentenced him to fifty days in jail. On appeal, Husband contends that the court’s order holding him in contempt lacked sufficient factual findings. He also contends that the orders requiring testing were ambiguous and unclear and that there was insufficient proof that his failure to submit to testing was willful. Finally, he challenges the punishment because of its impact on his parenting time. We affirm the finding of criminal contempt in part as modified and vacate the sentence.

The parties to this appeal separated in 2019 and executed a separation agreement requiring
the husband to pay child support for the parties’ three children. When the husband filed
for divorce in 2021, he requested that the child support be modified pursuant to a provision
in the separation agreement. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the
husband’s child support obligation should be modified due to a substantial change in the
parties’ circumstances. Following a motion to alter or amend filed by the wife, however,
the trial court reversed its initial ruling, holding that the husband’s child support obligation
was non-modifiable. The husband appealed to this Court. Because the trial court erred in
granting the wife’s motion to alter or amend, we reverse and remand the case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Eric L. Hoosier, Sr., was found guilty by a Montgomery County jury of criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder, criminal attempt to commit second-degree murder, employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, reckless endangerment, and reckless endangerment firing a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of seventy years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding character evidence of a victim, in denying the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial, and in sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence within the range. The defendant also contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. Michelle Miller, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm.

The pro se Defendant, Dedrick Wiggins, appeals the summary denial of his Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the Defendant has not raised a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Gregory Cornielus Thompson, pled guilty to two counts of robbery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and felony evading arrest. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked his suspended sentences in full and ordered the original sentences into execution. On appeal, the Defendant argues that a complete revocation of his sentences was an abuse of discretion. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A mother appeals a juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to two of her children based on three statutory grounds. She also challenges the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Discerning no error, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

After remand by the Tennessee Supreme Court, we reconsider Petitioner’s, Marshall G. Tate’s, appeal from the Franklin County Circuit Court’s order denying him post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he pleaded guilty to driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 percent or more (DUI per se). Petitioner also argues counsel’s ineffective assistance rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Tennessee Department of Transportation terminated a preferred service employee. Following the Step I and Step II appeals, the Board of Appeals upheld the termination. The employee petitioned for judicial review in the trial court. The trial court initially affirmed the Board of Appeals’ decision. The trial court then granted the employee’s motion to alter or amend and reversed the decision of the Board of Appeals. We reverse the trial court’s order.

The Appellant, Jermaine Mitchell Gray, appeals his conviction of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine for which he received a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.  He argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the State failed to reveal the existence and identity of a second confidential informant in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (3) the trial court denied his right of allocution before sentencing.  We additionally deny appointed counsel’s July 18 motion to withdraw as counsel in this case.  After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Majority Opinion concludes that the trial court erred in finding clear and
convincing evidence that Father abandoned the Child by failing to either visit or support
him in the four months prior to the filing of the termination petition. See Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 36-1-113(g)(1) (stating that “abandonment” by the parent is a ground for termination of
parental rights); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A) (offering several definitions of the
term “abandonment,” including failure to visit or support the child in the four consecutive
months preceding the filing of the termination petition, as alleged in this case). Because I
conclude that Tennessee law compels the opposite conclusions, I must respectfully dissent
from the Majority Opinion.

This is a termination of parental rights and adoption case. Appellant/Father appeals the
trial court’s termination of his parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to
provide more than token support and failure to exercise more than token visitation. Father
also appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of his parental rights is in the
child’s best interest. Because Father met his burden to show that his failure to provide
support and to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights and granting Appellees’ petition for adoption.

This appeal concerns a petition to terminate a father’s parental rights. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that four grounds for termination existed: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to support; (3) incarceration under a ten-year sentence; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We reverse the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence established the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support. However, we affirm its findings that the remaining grounds were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the child.

The defendant, Noah Rashad Lyles, pleaded guilty to theft of property between $1,000 and $2,500, and the trial court imposed a sentence of three years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant appeals a jury verdict finding him liable for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. We affirm the jury verdict, but reverse, in part, the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs under the parties’ contract. We also award the plaintiffs their attorney’s fees incurred on appeal under Tennessee Code section 27 1-122.

I agree with the majority that Mr. DiNovo failed to cite the record in the argument section of his brief in violation of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7), which requires appropriate references to the record in the argument section itself. I also agree with the majority that violations of Rule 27 may result in the dismissal of an appeal. Where I respectfully divide from my colleagues is that I do not agree that effectively dismissing Mr. DiNovo’s appeal is the appropriate response to the violation of Rule 27 under the circumstances of this case. I would instead consider Mr. DiNovo’s appeal on the merits; accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

The Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction of reckless homicide for which he received a sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Upon our review, we affirm.

The Plaintiff suffered significant injuries after falling through a plastic, debris-covered skylight embedded in the roof of the Defendant’s shop building. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant homeowner, alleging that the debris-covered skylight constituted a dangerous condition and that the Defendant failed to warn of its existence prior to the accident. After the Plaintiff did not call the Defendant as a witness and rested his case in chief, the Defendant sought a directed verdict, arguing that the Plaintiff could not establish that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition. The trial court agreed and granted the Defendant’s motion. Viewing the proof in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, as required at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict. We remand for further proceedings.

The Appellant previously entered into a workers’ compensation settlement agreement with the Appellee herein, Southern Energy Company, Inc., following serious injuries he received in an incident that had occurred at the latter’s biodiesel plant. Years later, the Appellant also attempted to recover against the Appellee in tort for the incident in the Davidson County Circuit Court. After the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellee, the Appellant appealed to this Court. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Scott Bible, of aggravated
statutory rape and soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, and the trial court sentenced
him to a fourteen-year sentence, with one year of confinement and the remainder to be
suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence
is insufficient to support his convictions and that he received the ineffective assistance of
counsel. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for an order of protection filed by the appellant
husband. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the order of protection but reverse the trial court’s award of
attorney fees to the respondent wife.

The Defendant, Trevor Rachell Cullom, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s
probation revocation of the ten-year sentence he received for his guilty-pleaded conviction
of attempted unlawful possession of a weapon. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the
trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the
remainder of his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.