APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this case involving the Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 10-7-101 – 10-7-702 (2012 & Supp. 2019), the petitioner filed a petition alleging that the respondent, the City of Memphis (“the City”), had violated the TPRA by failing to promptly disclose unredacted crash reports for all traffic accidents to which the City’s police officers had responded on two specific days in November 2017. The City filed a motion to dismiss the petition or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings pending resolution of what it averred would be a determinative issue in a related federal case. Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the City’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay pending resolution of the federal action. Finding that the City had violated the TPRA by failing to promptly disclose unredacted crash reports for public inspection, the trial court ordered such disclosure; however, upon also finding that a substantial legal issue was to be determined, the trial court stayed its disclosure order pending resolution of this appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-505(d)-(e) (2012). Upon finding that the City’s violation of the TPRA had not been willful, the trial court denied the petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees. The City timely appealed. During the pendency of this appeal, the federal district court in the related case certified the legal question posed by the City for presentation to the Tennessee Supreme Court, but the High Court subsequently entered an order declining certification. By the time of oral arguments before this Court, the parties acknowledged that the sole issue remaining for adjudication in this appeal was the petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees. We determine that under the version of the TPRA in effect at the time this action was filed, the trial court properly found that the City failed to promptly disclose the public records at issue. We further determine that the City’s violation of the TPRA was willful pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-505(g) (2012). We therefore reverse the trial court’s finding in this regard. We remand for the trial court to consider, in light of our determination concerning willfulness, whether reasonable attorney’s fees incurred during the trial court proceedings should be awarded to the petitioner. However, because the petitioner has not properly raised an issue concerning attorney’s fees on appeal, we deem the petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal to be waived.

This appeal concerns a municipality’s authority to order structures demolished pursuant to the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-21-101 et seq., and local ordinances implementing that Act. The trial court vacated a decision of the Metropolitan Board of Property Standards and Appeals that required demolition of the structures at issue. In light of the evidence that the cost to repair the structures exceeds fifty percent of their value, we reverse the decision of the trial court.

In this post-divorce dispute, Father petitioned to modify custody, and Mother filed a counter-petition to modify child support. At trial, both parents agreed to specific modifications to the parenting plan and to set child support according to the Child Support Guidelines. But they could not agree on a location for exchanging the children. After hearing limited testimony from the parents, the court chose an exchange location, set child support, and approved the agreed parenting plan. Unhappy with aspects of the new plan, Father filed a motion to alter or amend or for a new trial. The court denied Father’s motion but granted Mother’s motion to recalculate child support to reflect the parents’ actual parenting time. Because the court’s order approving the modified plan does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 and the record lacks a sufficient basis to support a best interest determination, we vacate the modification of the parenting plan and remand for the court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing on whether modification of the parenting plan is in the children’s best interest and enter an order compliant with Rule 52.01. In all other respects, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

Richard Moser (“Employee”) worked for Hara, Inc. d/b/a Hot Shot Delivery (“Employer”) as a truck driver. Employee filed this action against Employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, alleging that he sustained a compensable injury in August 2013, when he attempted to pull a duffel bag out of his truck. Employer asserts that the injury occurred in August 2014, when Employee used a crank to lower the landing gear on a trailer. In its defense, Employer specifically asserts that Employee’s failure to provide adequate notice of the 2014 injury contravenes his claim for compensation. Employee concedes he did not provide adequate notice of the 2014 injury. The trial court found that Employee suffered a compensable injury in August 2013 during the course and scope of his employment and retained a permanent anatomical impairment of 25% to the body as a whole as a result of the 2013 injury. Employer has appealed that decision. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, from the trial court’s denial of a motion for judicial recusal filed by the wife during the course of the parties’ divorce proceedings. Having determined that the trial court made insufficient findings in denying the motion as required by Section 1.03 of Rule 10B, we vacate the trial court’s order denying wife’s motion to recuse—as well as any other orders entered subsequent to the filing of Wife’s recusal motion—and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On February 8, 2018, a Knox County jury convicted Roshaun Colbert, Defendant, on one count each of reckless endangerment, evading arrest, reckless driving, attempted tampering with evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total effective sentence of twelve years. On November 14, 2018, the trial court vacated Defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment because reckless endangerment was not properly charged in the indictment as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant of attempted tampering with evidence and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm.

The defendant, Christopher Ogle, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original
five-year sentence in confinement. Upon review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant violated the terms of his probation, and the imposed sentence is proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In this divorce appeal, Wife argues that the trial court erred in dividing the equity in the marital home and in calculating her net award. We find no error in the trial court’s division of the equity in the marital home, but we have determined that the court erred in its calculation of the net award by crediting the marital debt against Wife twice. We, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part.

The facts before the court on appeal depend upon the procedural posture of the case. John Riebsame, a former employee of Holland Enterprises (“Holland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee on June 18, 2018, against Bradley Schemel, the vice president of Holland, a trucking company headquartered in Mapleton, North Dakota. On July 20, 2018, Mr. Schemel filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2) and (4) for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. With his motion, Mr. Schemel submitted his own affidavit, the contents of which will be detailed as relevant below.

The Defendant, Kevin Waggoner, appeals his conviction for second degree murder for which he received an eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction; (2) the trial court’s failure to grant a change of venue; (3) the trial court’s failure to grant a new trial due to juror misconduct; (4) law enforcement’s failure to record the statements of the Defendant and the Defendant’s son; (5) the admission of testimony from the forensic pathologist related to crime scene reconstruction; (6) the trial court’s exclusion of the recording of the Defendant’s 911 call; (7) the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of the victim’s conduct directed at the Defendant and his family; and (8) the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s request for access to the audio recordings of the trial. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Isaac Scott, of first degree premeditated murder, for which the Petitioner received an automatic life sentence. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the conviction and sentence. See State v Isaac Scott, No. W2005-02902-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 3837243 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Dec. 28, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. April 30, 2007). The Petitioner then filed a postconviction petition, claiming he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and, following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. This court affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial. Isaac Scott v. State, No. W2009-01256-CCA-R3-PC, 2011 WL 744764 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 2, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 16, 2011). In May 2018, the Petitioner filed a “Motion for Plain and Harmless Error Review.” The trial court, treating the motion as a post-conviction petition, summarily dismissed the motion because the issues had been previously determined and the petition was a second petition. The Petitioner appeals the denial, maintaining that he is entitled to plain error relief due to the jury instructions, the sentencing hearing, and the jury composition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The plaintiff, a former tenured schoolteacher, sued the Williamson County Board of Education and three administrators alleging that she was forced to resign after the defendants “bullied, stalked, intimidated, and defamed” her during the 2015–2016 school year. She asserted claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the original complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to revise and restate her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following discovery, the court summarily dismissed the two remaining claims as asserted in the amended complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) dismissal of her wrongful termination and negligence claims, and the summary dismissal of her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm the trial court’s determination the plaintiff’s negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act and Teachers’ Tenure Act, respectively. We have also determined that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a compensable injury in her claim for breach of contract. As for the plaintiff’s claim of wrongful termination, we respectfully disagree with the trial court’s determination that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inapplicable to wrongful termination claims under the Teachers’ Tenure Act. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of the plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim and remand this claim for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

The petitioner, Kendall Joy, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Shelby County Criminal Court. The petitioner argues his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Cocke County Jury found Defendant, Missy Daniella Lane, guilty of reckless homicide. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction for reckless homicide; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended motion for new trial; (3) whether the Cocke County Grand Jury had jurisdiction to render a superseding presentment; (4) whether the trial court denied Defendant the right to peremptory challenges during voir dire; (5) whether Defendant was prejudiced by a violation of the rule of sequestration by the State’s witnesses; (6) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by calling Derrick Raines as a witness; (7) whether the trial court violated Defendant’s right to a public trial; (8) whether the State’s expert witnesses testified improperly; (9) whether the trial court improperly denied Defendant’s request for jury instructions; (10) whether the jury was exposed to extraneous information; (11) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments; (12) whether the trial court properly denied alternative sentencing; and (13) cumulative error. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jonathan Michael Atha, was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated rape, four counts of aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the victims’ in-court identifications of the Defendant; (2) that the trial court erred by declining to issue a limiting jury instruction regarding the State’s failure to preserve evidence; (3) that the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant to serve consecutive sentences for aggravated rape; and (4) that the cumulative effect of these errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Cheryl Lynn Williams (“Employee”) alleged that she sustained a compensable injury and/or an occupational disease as a result of exposure to mold during the course and scope of her employment with SWS LLC d/b/a SecureWatch (“Employer”). Employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the one-year statute of limitations barred Employee’s claim. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. Employee has appealed. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Having determined that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning the commencement of the statute of limitations, we reverse the judgment and remand for proceedings on the merits.

A Robertson County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Tevin Mantez Harris, of second degree murder and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-two years to be served at one hundred percent and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing witnesses to testify about his being Muslim and his “viewpoint” toward Christianity and that his twenty-two-year sentence is excessive because the trial court misapplied an enhancement factor. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel found that an attorney should be disbarred after she was convicted of bank fraud. On appeal, the circuit court held that the hearing panel’s decision was arbitrary and imposed a five-year suspension. We reverse. The hearing panel’s decision was supported by substantial and material evidence and was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.

This appeal concerns the alleged formation of a contract for the sale of real property. The court ruled that text messages concerning the sale of the property did not constitute a present offer and acceptance sufficient to form a contract for the purchase of the property at issue. We affirm. 

The plaintiffs have appealed from an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court also directed the entry of a final judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. Because the ruling is not appropriate for certification as a final judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02, we dismiss the appeal.

A Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jeremy P. Duncan, of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, one count of possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, one count of being a felon in possession of a handgun, and one count of tampering with the evidence. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-four-year sentence. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the convictions and sentence. See State v. Jeremy Peres Duncan, No. W2017-00529-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1182579 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 6, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 8, 2018). The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, claiming he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner appeals the denial, maintaining that his counsel was ineffective. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

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

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed by Nancy Neely (“Petitioner”), seeking to recuse the trial judge in these companion cases involving a conservatorship and an estate. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Petitioner, and the answer ordered by this Court, and finding no error in the orders of the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”) denying recusal, we affirm.

The Defendant, Christopher Caldwell, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence for his convictions for burglary of a motor vehicle and felony theft and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective twelve-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community corrections sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Rachel Kay Bond, appeals the Lawrence County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from her conviction of first degree murder. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to: 1) request a change of venue; 2) strike three potential jurors; 3) investigate the existence of text messages stored in the Petitioner’s cell phone; 4) adequately cross-examine a witness; and 5) challenge the Petitioner’s competency. The Petitioner also alleges that trial counsel was ineffective because he allowed her to testify. Following a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.