APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this appeal, the trial court granted a motion to rescind a tax sale with respect to a particular parcel. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to enter an order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the basis for its decision. To the extent that a constitutional challenge is raised, the trial court should also determine on remand whether notice must be provided to the Tennessee Attorney General pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.04.

A Bradley County jury convicted the Defendant, Olga Narnia Sevilla, of aggravated child
abuse and aggravated child neglect, and the trial court sentenced her to a total effective
sentence of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court erred when it sentenced her.
After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

sell and/or deliver marijuana, a Class E felony, and the trial court imposed an agreed upon
sentence of three years suspended to supervised probation. In November 2022, the trial
court issued a probation violation warrant, alleging that the Defendant had been arrested
for new felony offenses. After a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had
violated his probation based on these arrests. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve
one year in confinement before returning to supervised probation. On appeal, the
Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting unreliable hearsay during the
revocation hearing; (2) revoking his probation sentence; and (3) ordering him to serve one
year in confinement. After a thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is the second appeal in this personal injury matter involving the plaintiff’s injury from an uneven sidewalk owned by the defendant city. In the first appeal, this Court remanded for the trial court to consider expert testimony that had been erroneously excluded by the trial court. On remand, the trial court heard expert testimony on the issue of the city’s maintenance and inspection of its sidewalks. Because the evidence on remand did not include any new evidence regarding the length of time that the sidewalk defect had existed, we have concluded that the issues raised by the plaintiff in this appeal are pretermitted by the law of the case doctrine.

The Defendant, Claude Harvey Banner, was convicted by a Carter County Criminal Court
jury of attempted second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. The trial
court initially approved the verdicts as thirteenth juror but later granted the Defendant’s
untimely motion for a new trial. We granted the State’s application for an interlocutory
appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 to consider whether the trial
court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial in its capacity at thirteenth juror after the
judgments were final. We reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial and reinstate
the judgments of conviction.

Petitioner, Baldomero Galindo, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his conviction for
first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends
that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to
raise a claim of self-defense and his failure to call a witness to testify after learning that the
witness failed a polygraph examination. Following a thorough review, we affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this appeal, the petitioner sought judicial review of a decision made by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development denying his application for unemployment compensation benefits. The chancery court reversed the Department’s decision, concluding that it was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. The Department appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

This is an appeal of a Governmental Tort Liability Act case and concerns a judgment received by the plaintiff, who stepped off of a curb in the middle of the block, not at the crosswalk, and was struck by a city-owned vehicle while attempting to cross between two stopped vehicles when the light changed. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we reverse the trial court’s judgment that the city defendant is liable for the negligent hiring and retention of its employee because the record fails to show that evidence was introduced at trial in support of this claim. Moreover, we reverse the trial court’s allocation of fault, concluding that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that the plaintiff is at least 50% at fault. Because the plaintiff is accordingly barred from obtaining a recovery, we dismiss the case.

The Petitioner, LaNorris O’Brien Chambers, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for two counts of robbery, two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card, and one count of aggravated assault. On appeal, the Petitioner argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to challenge Count 5, in failing to request dismissal of Count 2 of the superseding indictment, in failing to explain Rule 404(b) and the effect of his prior convictions, in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the State’s notice of sentence enhancement, and in failing to review all discovery with him. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In 1990, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Rhynuia L. Barnes, of premeditated first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life in prison. The Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction. He then unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief and three petitions for writ of error coram nobis, as well as a motion to exhume his father’s body and for fingerprint analysis. In 2023, the Petitioner filed his second post-conviction fingerprint analysis petition asking: (1) that the TBI enter the latent prints found on the murder weapon into an online fingerprint database; and (2) that the court order testing of his deceased father’s palm prints against the known palm print on the murder weapon. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant of first degree premeditated murder, felony
murder, especially aggravated robbery, carjacking, unlawful possession of a firearm as a
convicted felon, unlawful possession of a handgun as a convicted felon, and the lesser
included offense of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony.
The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty years. On appeal, the
Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to give an accomplice jury
instruction for a witness, Duraejia Clark; (2) the convicting evidence is insufficient because
the State failed to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony; and (3) cumulative error
requires reversal. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Appellee Dominion Real Estate, LLC (“Dominion”) filed a malicious prosecution action against the Wise Group, Inc. (the “Wise Group”), the Lux Development Group, LLC (the “Lux Group”) (together with the Wise Group, “Wise and Lux”), and Alan Wise (together with Wise and Lux, “the Wise Defendants” or “Appellants”). The trial court dismissed Dominion’s case, and Dominion appealed. 1 In their brief, the Wise Defendants asked this Court to award frivolous appeal damages. Dominion subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal. Although this Court granted the motion to dismiss, it reserved the issue of frivolous appeal damages, which is the sole issue addressed herein. Because Dominion’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success, it was frivolous, and the Wise Defendants are entitled to damages. Accordingly, we grant the Wise Defendants’ motion and remand the case for calculation of the Wise Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending this appeal and for entry of judgment on same.

A homebuilder sought to modify, correct, or vacate an arbitration award.  It claimed the arbitrator exceeded his powers in failing to award attorney’s fees and penalties under its contract with the homeowner.  The chancery court denied the requested relief and awarded the homeowner attorney’s fees for defending against the homebuilder’s motion.  Discerning no error, we affirm. 

The Petitioner, Kevin Lawrence, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner argues his judgment is void and illegal because his sentence does not reflect any parole eligibility. Based on our review, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

A sales representative for a product vendor was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The sales representative received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, a hardware product company, and then proceeded with a tort case against Tractor Supply. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Tractor Supply was the sales representative’s statutory employer within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 113(a) and, therefore, his recovery from his employer was his exclusive remedy. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply.

This appeal concerns subject matter jurisdiction. Eric O. Carter (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) against Howard Gentry (“Gentry”), Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk, 1 and Frank Strada (“Strada”), Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), asking that the criminal judgment entered against him be expunged because it was not properly endorsed under the applicable rules and statutes. The Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appeals, arguing that he only wants a ministerial act performed and is not challenging his sentence. We find that Petitioner is in fact challenging his sentence, and the Trial Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear that challenge. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court.

A sales representative for a product vendor was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The sales representative received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, a hardware product company, and then proceeded with a tort case against Tractor Supply. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Tractor Supply was the sales representative’s statutory employer within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 113(a) and, therefore, his recovery from his employer was his exclusive remedy. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply.

This is a partition in kind action. The three owners of 68 acres entered into a joint stipulation appointing three commissioners to partition the property into three separate parcels. Thereafter, the commissioners filed a written report with a survey that allocated 32.4 acres to the plaintiff Jerry Green, 17.8 acres to the defendant Robert Hale, and 18.1 acres to the defendant Cynthia Panter. After the defendants filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report, the parties agreed to have one of the commissioners testify to state the commissioners’ factual findings and reasoning. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Commissioner Bill Haisten testified in open court, explaining, in part, that more acreage was partitioned to the plaintiff because much of the parcel allocated to him is hilly and rocky and another large portion of the plaintiff’s parcel is encumbered by a TVA power line easement. Commissioner Haisten also testified that while the three partitioned parcels are not equal in area, they are equal in fair market value. Based upon these additional facts, the trial court concluded that the partitioning of the property by the commissioners should be confirmed. The defendants appeal, contending, inter alia, that without sufficient proof of either the value of the property partitioned or of the evaluations from which the commissioners derived their partition division, the trial court erred in confirming the commissioners’ report. We affirm.

The trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss on the ground of judicial immunity. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Appellant, Izaiha Gleaves, was convicted of second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, two counts of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-nine years’ confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to excuse a juror who had a conflict of interest; (3) the trial court erred when it admitted a redacted recording of a witness interview; (4) the trial court’s cumulative errors warrant reversal; and (5) the trial court erred when it imposed an effective sentence of forty-nine years.¹ After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Hawkins County jury convicted the Defendant, Travis Scott Gilliam, in three cases involving violations of the Sex Offender Registry, community supervision for life, and related offenses. In a fourth case, the Defendant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault and agreed to a six-year sentence running consecutively to the other cases. After a hearing, the trial court imposed partially consecutive sentences for a total effective sentence of fourteen years plus eleven months and twenty-nine days. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and that the judgments conflict with the trial court’s oral announcement. Upon our review, we dismiss the appeal in Case No. 22-CR-36 because this sentence was entered pursuant to a valid plea agreement and was the subject of a valid waiver of appeal. Regarding the other cases, we respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments. We also remand these cases for entry of corrected judgments reflecting the alignment of the sentence as announced at the sentencing hearing.

A Cumberland County jury found Defendant, Warren J. Nostrom, guilty of two counts of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court erred by (2) finding Defendant competent to stand trial and precluding an attorney from testifying as an expert at the competency hearing, (3) admitting Defendant’s pretrial statement to police, and (4) denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On January 10, 2017, Daryl Ray Baker, Petitioner, pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated sexual battery, five counts of attempted rape of a child, and two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of nineteen years in confinement, and Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence. In April 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, requesting the post-conviction court to consider his delayed post-conviction petition. Therein, Petitioner argued that newly discovered evidence entitled him to relief and due process required tolling of the one-year statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and Petitioner now timely appeals. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.