APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant was a firefighter and paramedic and was terminated from his employment after he was involved in a physical altercation at a political rally. After a hearing, the Board upheld his termination. The appellant then sought judicial review in chancery court. After reviewing the administrative record, the chancery court likewise upheld termination. On appeal, this Court concluded that the decision upholding the appellant’s termination should be reversed due to a violation of his due process rights. The Tennessee Supreme Court found no due process violation and reversed the decision of this Court, remanding for consideration of alternative arguments raised by the appellant that were deemed pretermitted in our previous opinion. Having carefully considered the appellant’s alternative arguments, we affirm the chancery court’s rulings on some issues but ultimately must vacate in part the decision upholding termination and remand for further proceedings before the Board.

The Appellant, Calvin Scott, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The Appellant also contends that the trial court had jurisdiction to address an issue regarding his pretrial jail credits and that the trial court should have recused itself from his case. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Calvin Banks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and being a convicted felon in possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence. Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Juan LaSean Perry, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he challenged his twenty-five-year sentence resulting from his second degree murder conviction in 2005. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The petitioner, Stevie Michael Irwin, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Petitioner, Ethan Alexander Self, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first-degree premeditated murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

Petitioner, Bert Newby, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court improperly determined that his petition was time-barred and that he presented newly discovered evidence of a witness’s recanted testimony, which may have resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Defendant, Jaquarius D. Carpenter, was convicted by a jury of possession with the intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, possession with the intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective eighteen-year sentence, as a Range II multiple offender, to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for possession with the intent to sell or deliver cocaine and simple possession of marijuana. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Bryant Christopher Mitchell, Defendant, appeals from his conviction of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a complete review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves a contract issue concerning a purported addendum to a land purchase and sale agreement. The trial court granted the seller’s motion for summary judgment holding that there was no mutual assent on at least one material term: whether the modification would include a new date-certain deadline for the diligence period or be openended. The buyer appeals. We affirm.

In this divorce case, Richard E. Davis, Jr. (“Husband”) challenges the trial court’s division of the marital estate, the award of spousal support and attorney’s fees to Kacy Collums Davis (“Wife”), and the trial court’s designation of Wife as primary residential parent. Wife asserts that the trial court erred in its division of the marital estate, in declining to award her 100% of her attorney’s fees, in denying her motion to disqualify the guardian ad litem, in awarding the parties equal parenting time, and in calculating Husband’s income for child support purposes. We modify the division of the marital estate (1) to correct a miscalculation, agreed by the parties to have been a clerical error in the trial court’s order, counting Wife’s retirement account twice; and (2) to reflect that Wife shall be responsible for the debt for her first attorney’s fees, which is secured by a lien on the marital residence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

A tenured teacher appealed his dismissal for unprofessional conduct and insubordination. He contended that the decision of the Board of Education lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The teacher also contended that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. The trial court affirmed the Board’s decision. Upon review, we conclude that the teacher received pre-termination notice of the charges and evidence against him. And the Board complied with the procedural framework in the Tenure Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-512 (2020). The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that the teacher was guilty of unprofessional conduct and insubordination. We further conclude that the teacher failed to establish that the Board’s decision was arbitrary or in violation of statutory or constitutional rights. So we affirm.

The Knox County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Kenneth Barnett, for ten counts of aggravated burglary with intent to commit theft, ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft, ten counts of theft, and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed the ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant of six counts of aggravated burglary, six counts of theft, and both counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, for which the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, William Casey, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for first degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of aggravated rape for offenses that occurred in 1979 and 1980. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal, that the
post-conviction court erred in failing to rule upon his motion in limine seeking to exclude the State from presenting any evidence protected by attorney-client privilege, and that the Petitioner is entitled to relief due to cumulative error. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court awarded a judgment in the amount of $13,835.17 to the father, representing the mother’s retroactive child support obligation. When calculating the mother’s child support arrearage, the trial court declined to include the father’s inheritance as income for child support calculation purposes because the father had used the majority of his inherited funds to pay private school tuition for the parties’ two children. The court further awarded to the father attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $18,394.00 related to a previous child custody modification action. The mother has appealed. Discerning reversible error, we vacate the trial court’s child support award and remand the child support issue to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether a modification was warranted and if so, the appropriate amount of child support to be awarded pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines (“the Guidelines”). We also vacate the trial court’s determination concerning civil contempt and remand that issue to the trial court as well.

This is the second action in which the petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”), seeks good sentence credits and prisoner performance credits. The trial court dismissed the present action, filed in 2019, in accordance with Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, determining that res judicata barred the suit. The decision was based on the following findings: the petitioner did not assert that the Davidson County Chancery Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in the prior action, filed in 2005, “the same parties were involved in both . . . suit[s],” both cases “arose out of the same transaction or series of connected transactions” between the same parties, and “the [prior] suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits . . . .” We affirm. 

A Bradley County jury convicted the defendant, Nicholas Maurice White, of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a police officer’s termination. Kodi Gail Knight (“Knight”) was a police officer for the City of Fairview, Tennessee (“Fairview”). After an August 2019 incident in which Knight struck a handcuffed woman (“the Arrestee”) in the face, Fairview police chief Zack Humphreys (“Chief Humphreys”) submitted a request to City Manager Scott Collins (“the City Manager”) that Knight be terminated. The City Manager sent Knight a termination letter. Knight requested, and was granted, a pre-dismissal hearing before the City Manager. Following this hearing, the City Manager affirmed the decision to terminate Knight. Knight filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Williamson County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court affirmed Fairview’s termination of Knight. Knight appeals, arguing among other things that his procedural due process rights were violated because the City Manager both drafted his termination letter and presided over his pre-dismissal hearing. We find that Knight was an at-will employee who lacked a property interest entitling him to procedural due process protection. We also find that the City Manager’s decision was supported by substantial and material evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

A Hardeman County jury convicted the Defendant, Joseph Griggs, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Issues regarding an award of attorney fees remain pending, so the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In Case No. 113496, Dominick Ratliff, Petitioner, pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone and received a sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility. In Case No. 112791,1 Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine and simple possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner received concurrent sentences of eight years’ incarceration with a thirty percent release eligibility and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration, respectively. The trial court ran the sentences in both cases concurrently, for an effective fifteen-year sentence with a 100 percent release eligibility. Petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, alleging in part that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner now appeals. Following a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Erik Sean Potts, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (“DUI”) by impairment (second offense) in exchange for dismissal of four other charges stemming from his DUI offense and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on supervised probation after service of forty-five days of confinement.  The Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, which was based upon an unconstitutional search and seizure.  After thorough review, we conclude that the certified question does not meet the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988), and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.   

Defendant, Lorenzo Barnhill, claims the trial court erred by finding that he was a dangerous offender and ordering his four-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-106 to be served consecutively to his effective seven-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-334. After a review of the record and applicable law, we determine that the trial court provided reasons on the record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was an offender whose “record of criminal activity is extensive.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2). Because the trial court found one of the seven criteria listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in aligning the sentences consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights. The child was placed into the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) in May 2019. DCS subsequently filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights in the Hamblen County Juvenile Court (“Juvenile Court”). Following trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights to the child, upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that the father had failed to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the child, that returning the child to the father’s custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child’s psychological welfare, and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Dewey Burton, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his Knox County Criminal Court Jury conviction of aggravated child neglect, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.