APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In 1996, a Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Courtney B. Mathews, of four counts of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The Defendant received consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each felony murder conviction and twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. The Defendant sought post-conviction relief, and this court subsequently held that he was entitled to post-conviction relief with respect to the motion for a new trial. On remand, the Defendant filed an amended motion for a new trial, and following a hearing, the trial court reduced his sentence for especially aggravated robbery to twenty years but otherwise denied his motion. On appeal, the Defendant raises challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the validity of the indictment, and the State’s failure to elect an offense; the admission into evidence of a black denim jacket; the State’s failure to correct false testimony; the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial based on an impermissible outside influence on the jury; the trial court’s refusal to allow additional closing arguments after it gave a supplemental jury instruction on criminal responsibility during jury deliberations; the trial court’s failure to issue an enhanced identification jury instruction; the trial court’s jury instruction on the reliability of fingerprint evidence; the State’s reliance on the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance during his trial while asserting that the aggravating circumstance could not be supported during the co-defendant’s subsequent trial; and the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself from the trial and post-trial proceedings. The Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to a new trial. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the statutory grounds of severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision.

Pro se Appellant, Kevin Millen, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Chancery Court that was entered on April 19, 2024. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

This appeal arises from a permanent parenting plan entered after the father requested a modification of the existing plan. The father argues that the trial court failed to properly weigh the evidence when establishing the plan. However, the plan did not include a determination of child support. Thus, the order appealed is not final, and we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider the issue raised. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Defendant, Taylor Wolfinger, appeals a judgment from the Blount County Circuit Court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his previously ordered probationary sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he violated the terms of his probation and revoking his probation to serve his original sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant, Joshua Adam Hill, on two counts of aggravated rape, one count of incest, and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, for which he was sentenced to an effective twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape and sexual battery by an authority figure and that the trial court committed plain error when it instructed the jury on the elements of those offenses. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, John D. Baskette, of attempted theft of property valued over $60,000 but less than $250,000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective five-year term, which was suspended to probation after six months of confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the proof is legally insufficient to support his conviction. He also asserts that the trial court failed to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of a claim of right. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I wholly concur with Judge Frierson’s well-reasoned conclusion that our de novo review of the underlying record in this case demonstrates that Mother and Stepfather have presented clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights is in Mia’s best interest. I write separately to address the important concerns raised by Judge Stafford in his thoughtful dissent.

The defendant, Martinez Carter, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the revocation and disposition of the defendant’s probation.

This is an appeal from trial court proceedings in which a property owner sought to enjoin the City of Chattanooga from demolishing a condemned house. Because the property owner has since sold the property at issue to a third-party purchaser who is now renovating the property, the original property owner no longer has standing, and the issues he attempts to raise are moot. This appeal is dismissed.

There is much in the Majority Opinion with which I agree, including the reprehensibility of Father’s conduct toward Mother during their relationship and the inappropriate nature of his “discipline” of the Child. However, because the trial court relied heavily on witness credibility determinations in finding that the termination of Father’s parental rights was not in the Child’s best interest, I must respectfully dissent from the Majority Opinion’s decision to terminate.

The Defendant, Asata Lowe, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s dismissal of
his Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36 and Rule 36.1 motions for their failure to state
colorable claims. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in summarily
dismissing the motions because he stated colorable claims. We affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

Tenant appeals the trial court’s determination that (1) he breached his lease by failing to pay water bills for several years and (2) the apartment complex did not breach the lease by bringing the underlying eviction proceedings. The apartment complex also appeals the trial court’s grant of only some of its attorney’s fees. Because we conclude that there was no meeting of the minds regarding the payment for water services, we reverse the trial court’s finding of a breach of contract. We further determine that Cadence is entitled to quantum meruit relief, and we remand for a determination of the reasonable value of the utilities used by the tenant. We also vacate the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and remand for the determination and calculation of those fees allowed.

This case involves termination of the parental rights of a biological father to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the statutory ground of abandonment by failure to support had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, the trial court declined to find that termination of the father’s rights was in the child’s best interest and accordingly denied the termination petition. The petitioners have appealed. Upon thorough review, we conclude that the trial court erred in its determination concerning the best interest analysis. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the termination petition, and we grant termination of the father’s parental rights.

Defendant, Aaron Dean Whitman, was convicted by a Blount County jury of violating the sex offender registry, for which he received a sentence of 391 days’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to stipulate to his prior convictions, for which he was required to register as a sex offender. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of the named offenses for which Defendant was convicted; however, we determine that the error was harmless and affirm Defendant’s conviction. 

The defendant appeals from the Bedford County Circuit Court’s partial denial of his motion seeking resentencing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h). Upon our review of the oral arguments, applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Juvenile Court for Jefferson County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated the parental rights of Meliah B. (“Mother”) to her children, Tucker R., Gracelynn R., and Roland R. (“the Children”). Mother has appealed, challenging only the Juvenile Court’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellee’s employment as a City of Memphis Firefighter was terminated based on an offensive post to Appellee’s Facebook page. After receiving notice of his termination, Appellee requested an appeal hearing with the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission. Following the hearing, the Commissioner issued a decision affirming the termination, and Appellee sought review in the trial court. The trial court reversed the Commissioner’s decision, finding that substantial and material evidence did not support the decision, and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and made in violation of Appellee’s right to equal protection. The City of Memphis appeals. We vacate the trial court’s decision reversing the Commission’s termination of Appellee’s employment. The case is remanded to the trial court for entry of an order vacating the Commissioner’s decision and ordering further proceedings in compliance with this opinion.

Alexander Vance, Petitioner, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief after this Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. See State v. Vance, 596 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2020). On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel at trial despite several alleged areas of deficient performance. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Litigation arose in connection with a dispute over an option agreement to purchase property.  The parties agreed to settle the case and to allow a Tennessee-licensed real estate appraiser to set the purchase price.  The purchasers, however, moved to set aside the price set by the appraiser.  Relying on the opinions of a licensed real estate broker and a different licensed appraiser, the purchasers argued that the appraiser’s valuation deviated from the required professional standards to such an extent that it fell below the relevant standard of care.  The trial court denied the motion, concluding: (1) the purchasers could not under the settlement agreement challenge the appraisal; (2) even if they could, the real estate broker’s lack of an appraisal license rendered him per se incompetent to testify; and (3) the purchasers failed to provide a declaration from their expert licensed real estate appraiser stating that the appraisal had not been conducted in accordance with professional standards.  In response to a motion to alter or amend, the trial court judge recognized that the purchasers had, in fact, provided such a declaration, but, nevertheless, denied their motion.  The purchasers appeal.  We conclude that the purchasers can challenge the appraiser’s evaluation on the limited basis that he allegedly departed from the professional standard of care.  We also conclude the Tennessee licensed real estate broker not holding a Tennessee real estate appraiser’s license does not per se render his testimony incompetent.  We also conclude that even assuming the testimony from the real estate broker is inadmissible, the purchasers have presented evidence that the appraisal was not conducted in accordance with professional standards.  Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for the trial court to reassess the admissibility of the real estate broker’s testimony and to determine whether the appraiser violated the professional standard of care.

This appeal concerns the discovery rule. Dr. Jason C. Eck, D.O. (“Defendant”) performed spinal surgery on Keetly Marc (“Plaintiff”). On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, who then was representing Plaintiff only in a workers’ compensation case, received information through discovery reflecting that Plaintiff’s surgery was performed at the wrong level. Counsel reviewed the material on November 30, 2020, and informed Plaintiff by December 4, 2020. On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice. On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff sued Defendant in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) alleging health care liability. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to Defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We hold that Plaintiff cannot be charged with constructive notice based on her attorney’s November 10, 2020, receipt of the relevant information because counsel was then representing Plaintiff only in a workers’ compensation case, and a potential health care liability claim was beyond the scope of her representation. Thus, the knowledge obtained by Plaintiff’s counsel on November 10, 2020, may not be imputed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was made aware of the relevant information at some point from November 30, 2020, through December 4, 2020, meaning her lawsuit against Defendant was timely filed. We reverse the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for this case to proceed.

A mother relocated out-of-state with her children and filed a petition to modify the existing parenting plan. The father filed a competing petition for modification. The trial court found a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the parenting plan. It crafted two modified parenting plans: one which would take effect if the mother remained out-of-state and the other which would take effect if she returned to Tennessee. The mother returned and now argues the parenting plan should not have been modified. We affirm.

Appellant filed this petition for recusal appeal after the trial court denied a motion to recuse. In light of Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, we affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“the Department”) denied the claimant’s claim for unemployment benefits after determining that the claimant had “voluntarily quit” his job. The claimant appealed, but the Department’s appeals tribunal denied the appeal as untimely. The claimant appealed further to the Department’s office of administrative review, which affirmed the appeals tribunal’s decision. Four years later, the claimant sought judicial review of the Department’s decision by filing a civil warrant in the Davidson County General Sessions Court (“general sessions court”). The general sessions court dismissed the civil warrant upon a motion filed by the Department, and the claimant appealed to the Davidson County Circuit Court (“trial court”). The Department moved to dismiss the action based upon (1) insufficiency of service of process, (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(1), (2), (5), and (6). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on all grounds. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The juvenile court terminated a mother’s and a father’s parental rights. The mother challenges the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination of her parental rights existed and that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The father asserts that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights because his due process rights were violated. Because the juvenile court erred in allowing the father’s attorney to withdraw from representation, we vacate the court’s termination of his parental rights on all grounds and remand for a new trial. We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.