APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Ercil K. Gates-Rayford, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

The trial court entered an order permitting the use of sealed court records from a dependency and neglect matter in a subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the dependency and neglect proceedings. The respondent mother, who is also the plaintiff in the related federal action, has appealed. Inasmuch as the collateral federal lawsuit has now been dismissed, we determine that this appeal is moot and nonjusticiable. We therefore dismiss the mother’s appeal.

After a planning commission approved a subdivision request, neighboring property owners filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari. The trial court granted the writ and, upon review, vacated the decision and remanded the case for further consideration. Both the planning commission and the owner of the proposed development appealed. Based on our review, we conclude that the planning commission acted illegally when it misapplied the applicable legal standards. So we affirm.  

The defendant, Dawn Michlitsch, pled guilty to two counts of possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia for which she received an effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in enhancing her sentence and in denying any form of alternative sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Two corporations entered into merger discussions. Later, one corporation sued the other claiming that an agreement to merge had been reached through the exchange of emails. The plaintiff corporation requested specific performance of the alleged merger agreement and damages. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court concluded on the undisputed facts that there was no meeting of the minds and, thus, no agreement to merge. We affirm.

A Carroll County jury convicted the Defendant, Elijah Paul Williams, of intentionally or knowingly failing to pay child support, and the trial court sentenced him to six months, ninety days of which the Defendant was to serve in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that he was denied due process of law. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The father of two children appeals the termination of his parental rights, contending the petitioner failed to prove a ground for termination or that termination was in the children’s best interests by clear and convincing evidence. In 2018, the juvenile court placed the children in foster care and declared them dependent and neglected upon the petition of the Department of Children’s Services. The court then ratified a permanency plan that had several requirements for the father, including submitting to and passing random drug screens, resolving pending legal issues, and avoiding new criminal charges. Over the next two years, the father only completed some of the action steps and incurred new criminal charges for which he was incarcerated. In September 2019, the Department filed a petition to terminate the father’s rights on the grounds of abandonment by exhibiting a wanton disregard for the children’s welfare and by failure to visit, failure to comply with the permanency plan, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of and financial responsibility for the children. After the final hearing, the court found that the Department proved all four grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests. This appeal followed. Following a detailed review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s findings in all respects and affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

The present appeal concerns an insurance agent’s alleged negligent failure to procure excess uninsured motorist coverage in accordance with a prospective insured’s instructions. The two insured parties, a married couple, filed suit against their insurance agent and agency after they were denied coverage by the insurance carrier. The trial court found that it was undisputed that the insureds had paid the premium for the policy in effect and applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-135(b), which provides: “The payment of premium for an insurance contract, or amendment thereto, by an insured shall create a rebuttable presumption that the coverage provided has been accepted by all insureds under the contract.” The trial court determined that the insureds had failed to rebut the statutory presumption that they had accepted the provided coverage, which did not include excess uninsured motorist coverage. Therefore, the trial court granted the insurance agent’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, concluding that the rebuttable presumption does not apply to actions against an insurance agent. We granted the ensuing application for permission to appeal to address whether section 56-7-135(b) applies to create a rebuttable presumption in actions against an insurance agent for negligent failure to procure an insurance policy as directed. Considering the plain language of the statute, we conclude that it does create such a presumption. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment. 

Petitioner, Michael F. Maraschiello, was convicted of first degree murder, arson, possession of a shotgun with an altered serial number, and theft after a jury trial in 1997. He was sentenced to life plus five years for the convictions. Petitioner appealed and this Court affirmed the conviction. State v. Maraschiello, 88 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Over 19 years ago, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging various grounds for relief including ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner sought funding for a medical and psychological expert in 2005, and the post-conviction court denied the request. The post-conviction court granted Petitioner permission for an interlocutory appeal. This Court denied the application for permission to appeal. State v. Michael F. Maraschiello, M2007-01968-CCA-R9-CO, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 26, 2007) (order). After multiple amended petitions that included dozens of claims, the postconviction court denied relief to Petitioner in 2019. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the evidence weighs against the post-conviction’s court finding that Petitioner was not a credible witness, that he has a constitutional or statutory right to state funded experts and investigators, that the post-conviction court erred by denying Petitioner the ability to prove his claims by refusing to allow Petitioner to call sixty-nine witnesses, that the postconviction court erred when it rejected Petitioner’s claim that he clearly accepted a plea offer, and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call or impeach witnesses. After a thorough review of the very lengthy record, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a judgment finding the defendant violated a protective order and a subsequent judgment extending the protective order for one year. Specifically, the defendant seeks to set aside these judgments based on inadequate notice. Although the defendant appeared in court for a related hearing and admits that all notices were sent to her at the proper address, she contends on appeal that, because she was a frequent traveler, she was unaware of the two hearings at issue in this appeal until after they occurred. We have determined the defendant waived the notice issue by failing to bring it to the attention of the trial court and by failing to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Additionally, we have determined the appeal was frivolous; therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 27-1-122. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make the appropriate award.

The Defendant, Jordana Jenyane Wright, pled guilty to Class E felony theft of property with an agreed-upon sentence of one year and six months of probation. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for diversion. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court, in its decision to deny diversion, failed to properly account for the Defendant’s lack of a criminal record and improperly weighed irrelevant facts, such as the Defendant’s failure to implicate any potential co-defendants and the criminal history of the Defendant’s fiancé. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Demetrice A. Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2017
guilty-pleaded convictions of possession of a handgun after having been convicted of a felony and failure to appear, alleging that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Thomas McLaughlin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition alleged that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at a revocation hearing .Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Defendant, Armin Lars Begtrup, was found guilty after a jury trial of two counts of aggravated perjury. He was sentenced to three and one-half years of supervised probation. The trial court granted judicial diversion. Defendant timely filed a motion for new trial which the trial court denied. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court violated his right to a unanimous verdict and that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his convictions. After a thorough review, we dismiss the appeal because we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurance claim filed against his employer following a car accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I agree that the majority opinion is correctly decided based upon the current relevant rules and case law. I write separately because I also agree with the statement in the Defendant’s supplemental brief that The denial of access to the appellate courts where the defendant enters a plea of not guilty, is convicted at trial, and is sentenced under judicial diversion is wrong. That is the Appellant’s rubric. The defendant who maintains his innocence has no appellate recourse to correct trial errors that may have resulted in a wrongful conviction if sentenced under judicial diversion.

The transferee of real property following a foreclosure sale filed a forcible entry and detainer action against the occupier. After the transferee prevailed in the general sessions court, the occupier appealed to circuit court. The transferee then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the transferee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

In this dispute over the sale of real and personal property, the buyers complain that they did not receive all the personal property described in the bill of sale and that the real property was encumbered. Their complaint asserted claims for intentional misrepresentation, breach of the covenant against encumbrances, and breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the buyers damages for breach of contract and intentional misrepresentation. Both sides appealed. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the buyers’ reliance on the misrepresentation in the warranty deed was reasonable. In all other respects, we affirm.

Petitioner, Brian Pillow, was convicted by a Maury County Jury of three counts of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free zone. He received an effective sentence of twelve years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court should have granted a continuance when co-counsel was appointed. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied his petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this forcible entry and detainer case, REI Nation, LLC (“REI”) filed a detainer warrant against LaTasha Chanta Tennial (“Tennial”) in the General Sessions Court for Shelby County (“the General Sessions Court”) to obtain possession of certain foreclosed-upon real estate (“the Property”) it had purchased. The General Sessions Court entered judgment for REI. Tennial appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”) for trial de novo. The Circuit Court found for REI, as well. Tennial appeals to this Court. Discerning no reversible error in the Circuit Court’s judgment, we affirm.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it holds that the post-conviction trial court must first determine that a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief before a District Attorney General is allowed to negotiate a settlement of criminal convictions and/or sentences which are the subject of a post-conviction proceeding.  The majority opinion prohibits the 31 District Attorneys General in Tennessee from evaluating a petition for post-conviction relief, determining that it has some merit, and concluding that it is appropriate to concede a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief.  In so doing, the majority opinion prevents the State’s statutorily designated attorney from negotiating the most favorable settlement of the challenged underlying charges before a post-conviction trial court grants full post-conviction relief.  If a District Attorney General must wait until the post-conviction trial court rules that post-conviction relief must be granted, the District Attorney General, as in the case sub judice, might very well have a difficult task to locate witnesses and/or physical evidence to present in a new trial.  Consequently the State would be required to negotiate from a position of weakness as a result of mandating that the court first grant post-conviction relief prior to the State negotiating a new settlement of the challenged offenses.  As a result, the majority opinion undermines the authority of each District Attorney General in this state. 

A legal parent appeals a child support award.  He claims his voluntary acknowledgment of paternity for the child should be rescinded due to a material mistake of fact.  He also claims that requiring him to pay child support would violate public policy because he is not the biological father of the child.  Upon our review, we conclude that the legal parent failed to prove the existence of a material mistake of fact that would warrant rescission of the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity.  We also conclude that ordering a legal parent to pay child support is consistent with public policy.  So we affirm.

Defendant, Joseph Christopher Hendry II, was indicted for one count of felony first degree murder, one count of premeditated first degree murder, one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, and four counts of aggravated assault.  Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder and received a sentence of 25 years to be served at 100 percent.  Defendant filed a motion seeking to reduce his sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.  Following a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion.  Defendant appeals.  Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Petitioner, Nicholas Griffin, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. The post-conviction proceeding attacked his conviction of second degree murder with a Range II sentence of 26 years pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to adequately prepare for trial and failed to file a motion to suppress the recordings of his jail calls with his mother. Petitioner further argues that trial counsel and his mother pressured him into accepting the guilty plea. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a State appeal, filed by the State Attorney General and Reporter, from an Agreed Order (“AO”) entered between Petitioner, Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman, and the District Attorney General for Davidson County. The AO amended Petitioner’s capital sentence to life imprisonment. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings based upon the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (2016). The post-conviction court granted the motion and set the matter for a hearing. At the hearing, the parties presented to the court an AO stating that Petitioner’s sentence would be amended in exchange for his waiving and dismissing all post-conviction claims. The post-conviction court accepted the AO and subsequently entered an amended judgment of conviction. The State appealed, arguing that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to accept the AO and amend Petitioner’s sentence. Petitioner responds that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the State consented to the AO in the post-conviction court, thereby foreclosing any right to appeal. We have thoroughly considered the briefs and arguments of both parties as well as the amici curiae. We conclude that the State has a right to appeal to challenge the jurisdiction of the post-conviction court. We also conclude that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to accept the AO and to amend Petitioner’s final judgment of conviction because it did not comply with the statutory requirements for granting relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Therefore, we vacate both the AO and the amended judgment of conviction and remand this case to the post-conviction court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.