APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiffs in this construction defect action appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their case with prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s orders. They also allege error concerning the trial court’s refusal to recuse itself, the disqualification of counsel, and the decision to report counsel’s conduct to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility. We vacate the order of dismissal with prejudice and direct entry of dismissal without prejudice. We affirm the court’s order in all other respects.

On December 3, 2018, the Defendant, Juan Dewayne Hall, entered an Alford plea to the offense of possession with intent to deliver over 26 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. As a condition of his plea, the Defendant expressly preserved two certified questions of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, stemming from his denied motion to suppress. After thorough review, we conclude that the certified questions do not meet the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2)(A) 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.

The Appellant, Shane Evans Vincent, pled guilty in the Giles County Circuit Court to facilitation of aggravated child abuse, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years to be served as six months in jail followed by supervised probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered that he serve the remainder of his twelve-year sentence in confinement. The Appellant filed a motion for new trial “on the violation of his probation,” the trial court denied the motion, and the Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court. The State argues that we should dismiss the appeal because the Appellant’s motion for new trial and notice of appeal were untimely. The Appellant concedes that a probation revocation proceeding is not a “trial”; therefore, his motion for new trial did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. We conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Defendant, Kavaris Lequan Kelso, was indicted on one count each of aggravated burglary, premeditated first degree murder, and first degree felony murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202, -14-403. The Defendant was convicted as charged after a jury trial, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life plus six years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred by declining to instruct the jury on duress. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the defendants, Alfred Maron Williams, Eric Martel Abrams, and Jamie Paul Click, of twelve counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to sell heroin within 1000 feet of a drug-free school zone. The trial court merged these twelve convictions into one conviction for each defendant. The jury additionally convicted Defendant Williams of multiple other drug and firearms-related offenses. The trial court sentenced Defendant Williams and Defendant Click to effective sentences of twenty-five years of incarceration each, and it sentenced Defendant Abrams to twentyone years of incarceration. All three defendants appeal. Defendants Williams and Click contend that the trial court erred when it failed to hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether a conspiracy existed. All three defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain their convictions for conspiracy. Defendant Click additionally contends that the trial court erred when it allowed him to be convicted of the common law crime of conspiracy. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A person who is injured because of an unfair or deceptive act or practice that affects the conduct of any trade or commerce has a cause of action under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“the Act”), Tennessee Code Annotated sections 47- 18-101 to -132 (2013 & Supp. 2019). We granted review to determine whether the Act applies to the business aspects of a health care provider’s practice. The plaintiffs were injured in car accidents and received hospital medical services. The hospitals did not bill the plaintiffs’ health insurance companies but filed hospital liens against the plaintiffs’ claims for damages arising from the accidents. The hospital liens were for the full amount of the hospital bills with no reduction for the plaintiffs’ health insurance benefits. The plaintiffs sued the hospitals, asserting the filing of undiscounted hospital liens was an unlawful practice under the Act. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Act did not apply to a claim in which the underlying transactions involved medical treatment. We hold that the Act applies to health care providers when they are acting in their business capacities. The plaintiffs, who were consumers of medical services, may state a claim under the Act against the hospitals for conduct arising out of the hospitals’ business practices. We reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns healthcare liability. A husband and wife filed an action against six medical care providers alleging negligence in the medical treatment of the wife. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the basis of noncompliance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), which requires that pre-suit notice include a HIPAA1 compliant medical authorization allowing a healthcare provider receiving a notice to obtain complete medical records from every other provider that is sent a notice. The plaintiffs’ authorization allowed each provider to disclose complete medical records to each named provider but did not state specifically that each provider could obtain records from each other. The trial court held that the authorization failed to substantially comply with the statute’s requirements. The plaintiffs appealed. We hold that Plaintiffs’ method of permitting Defendants access to Mrs. Combs’s medical records substantially complied with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)E). We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Anton Carlton, is appealing the trial court’s summary dismissal of his third post-conviction petition. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

On April 21, 2016, the Defendant, Christopher Caldwell, was convicted of three felony offenses in Davidson County and sentenced to fifteen years in Community Corrections. On October 20, 2016, he was convicted in Sumner County of two felony offenses and sentenced to twelve years in Community Corrections, consecutive to the Davidson County sentences. The Defendant violated the terms of his Davidson County sentence and was ordered to serve one year and then return to Community Corrections. More than eight months later, after learning that the Defendant had also violated the terms of his Sumner County sentence and had been ordered to serve that sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction, the Davidson County trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his Davidson County sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Because the Davidson County trial court’s original disposition of the Community Corrections violation was final, and no additional warrant alleging a new violation of Community Corrections had been filed, the Davidson County trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the service of the Davidson County sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The State concedes this point. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the Davidson County trial court’s June 21, 2019 order requiring service of the Defendant’s Davidson County sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction.

The State appeals from the post-conviction court’s order granting post-conviction relief to the Petitioner, Larry E. Rathbone, from his convictions for two counts of rape of a child, one count of attempted rape of a child, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, for which he is serving an effective fifty-six-year sentence. On appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred in granting relief on the Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to his trial attorney’s dual representation of him and the codefendant at their joint trial and related to counsel’s failure to obtain a severance. In cross-appeal issues, the Petitioner contends that the court erred in failing to grant relief on his claim that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not challenge the competency of the child victim who testified at the trial and that he is entitled to plain error relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s lack of objection to the introduction of evidence of uncharged criminal conduct. We conclude that the post-conviction court erred in granting relief and reverse its judgment.

This pro se appellant appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his lawsuit. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a conservatorship action in which an attorney ad litem was appointed to represent the respondent. The dispositive issue is whether the trial court had the discretion to assess all or any portion of the fees of the attorney ad litem to a party other than the respondent when Tenn. Code. Ann. § 34-1-125(b) states “[t]he cost of the attorney ad litem shall be charged against the assets of the respondent.” The trial court ruled that it did not have the discretion to deviate from the clear mandate in the statute. We affirm.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Quintavious Hill, as charged of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and the trial court imposed an effective eleven-year sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, 39-13-210, 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iii), 39-17-1324(b). On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jemel Johnson, was convicted by a Sumner County Criminal Court jury of two counts of attempted sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class D felony, two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and assault by extremely offensive or provocative conduct, a Class B misdemeanor, for acts involving two foster children. See T.C.A. §§ 39-12-101 (2018) (attempt); -13-101(A)(3) (2010) (subsequently amended) (assault); -13-502 (2018) (aggravated rape); -13-527 (2018) (attempted sexual battery by an authority figure). He received a sentence of twenty-five years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court violated his constitutional right to due process by failing to produce a trial transcript sufficient to provide appellate review; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape; (3) the trial court erred by admitting the victims’ hearsay statements; (4) the trial court erred by allowing the State to cross-examination the Defendant’s wife about her blaming the victims; (5) the trial court erred by not allowing the victims’ school principal to testify about specific instances of conduct by one of the victims; (6) the trial court erred by questioning the Defendant’s wife in an argumentative manner, resulting in prejudice to the Defendant; and (7) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on sexual battery by an authority figure as a lesser included offense of aggravated rape. We affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts One and Two.

The defendant, Antonio Benson, was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant contended that the proof at trial fairly raised the issue of whether or not he killed the victim in self-defense and that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that self-defense should have been charged and concluded that the error was not harmless. The intermediate court therefore reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. We granted this appeal to clarify the gatekeeping function of a trial court when assessing whether self-defense has been fairly raised by the proof and to consider the quantum of proof necessary for a court to charge a jury on selfdefense. We hold that self-defense was not fairly raised by the proof in this case because the defendant was not lawfully defending himself when he killed the victim. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

A jury convicted the Appellant, Jawara Jones, of possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, driving on a revoked license, and tampering with evidence. He received a total effective sentence of fifteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, he contends (1) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce proof of a prior unindicted sale of cocaine, (2) that the trial court erred by allowing a police officer to testify as an expert witness, and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Appellant. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that two grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

The Appellant, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

In this divorce action, the husband has appealed, raising issues concerning the trial court’s award to the wife of $300.00 in monthly rehabilitative alimony for four years, distribution of the parties’ marital debts, and allocation of co-parenting time with the parties’ child. The husband subsequently conceded during oral argument that the issue of co-parenting time is moot due to the child’s having reached the age of majority. Additionally, we determine that the husband has waived the issue of debt distribution through his failure to comply with Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 7. Having further determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of rehabilitative alimony to the wife, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

Pro se appellant appeals the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of his action pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2). The appellant’s brief significantly fails to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. Accordingly, we find that any issues on appeal are waived. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

This is an appeal from the judgment in a personal injury action in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages incurred in a car accident. The trial court granted summary judgment on the issue of liability. Following a hearing on the measure of damages at which the only proof was the plaintiff’s testimony, the trial court entered a $5,000 judgment against the defendants. This appeal followed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The plaintiff and another individual, as co-personal representatives of an estate, filed a probate action, seeking declaratory relief and recovery of personal property concerning a vehicle that allegedly belonged to the estate. This action was voluntarily nonsuited without prejudice in December 2016. In November 2017, the plaintiff, in his individual capacity only, filed a complaint for declaratory relief and recovery of personal property, requesting that the vehicle be returned not to the estate but instead to the plaintiff. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s 2017 complaint as being untimely. The Trial Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s individual action was not saved by the Tennessee savings statute, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 28-1-105(a), and was, therefore, untimely. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child. The juvenile court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence of five grounds for terminating the father’s parental rights and seven grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights. The court also determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Upon our review, of the grounds actually alleged for terminating parental rights, only two against the father were supported by clear and convincing evidence. And five of the six grounds alleged for terminating the mother’s parental rights were supported by clear and convincing evidence. We also conclude that termination of both parent’s rights was in the child’s best interest. So we affirm the termination of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, asserting that the evidence did not establish the three grounds upon which termination was based and that termination was in his child’s best interest. He also argues that he is entitled to a new trial due to ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, the denial of a continuance in order that he could represent himself, and that the court erred in not finding that he was competent to stand trial. Upon our thorough review, we conclude that the father received fundamentally fair procedures; that he waived the issues related to the continuance and his competence to participate in the trial; we reverse the court’s holding with respect to one ground, affirm the rest, and affirm the termination of his rights.

concur with the majority’s opinion except as to the holding that the ground as to the “failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody” was not satisfied. This Court is split on this issue, and I agree with the line of cases that hold that the parent has to be able and willing rather than just either of the two. See In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 3058280, at *12-14 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018). I concur in all the rest of the majority’s opinion including termination of the father’s parental rights. Given this Court’s clear and irreconcilable split as to this question of statutory interpretation, I request the Tennessee Supreme Court accept and resolve this issue once it has the opportunity to do so.