APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child. The juvenile court found three statutory grounds for termination: (1) abandonment for failure to visit by an incarcerated parent; (2) abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of a child by an incarcerated parent; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility for the child. The court also found that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

This is a parental termination case. The juvenile court declined to terminate father’s parental rights, but it found that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate mother’s on the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The juvenile court further found that termination was in the best interests of the children. We reverse as to the former two grounds, but affirm as to the latter two and further find that termination of mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children.

The Petitioner, Richard Dickerson, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel coerced him into testifying and failed to discover a mistake in his presentence report. After thorough review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This is a parental termination case. The juvenile court declined to terminate father’s parental rights, but it found that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate mother’s on the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The juvenile court further found that termination was in the best interests of the children. We reverse as to the former two grounds, but affirm as to the latter two and further find that termination of mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the defendant, German Calles, of one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, four counts of aggravated assault while acting in concert with others, two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, one count of especially aggravated burglary, two counts of employment of a weapon during the commission of a dangerous felony, two counts of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery, and one count of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred when setting the length of his sentences and ordering partial consecutive sentences. Following our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Gregory Duff, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Defendant, Amanda Beth Marcy, appeals from the denial of her “Motion to Amend Revocation Order” in which she argued that the trial court failed to award her credit for time served on Community Corrections when her probation was revoked. For a multitude of reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

In this divorce action, the wife was shown to be economically disadvantaged compared to the husband, and the trial court awarded to the wife a slightly greater share of the marital estate in addition to rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $4,000.00 per month for a period of four years. The husband has appealed. Although we conclude that the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed, we also modify that judgment to include an indemnification clause in the husband’s favor regarding the mortgage on the marital residence. We further grant the wife’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred in defending this appeal.

Roger Elliott (“Elliott”) appeals the January 23, 2018 order of the Circuit Court for Hawkins County (“the Trial Court”) holding that Elliott had violated Church Hill Municipal Ordinance No. 11-101 and assessing a civil penalty of $25.00 against Elliott for the violation. We find and hold that the evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that Elliott violated Church Hill Municipal Ordinance No. 11-101. We, therefore, affirm

A jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Louis Roe, of three counts of rape of a child, one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, and one count of solicitation to commit rape of a child. He received an effective sentence of thirty-five years in prison. A few days prior to trial, the State alerted the Defendant to the existence of voluminous documents consisting of emails between the Defendant and the victim which had not previously been produced in discovery. The Defendant sought a continuance. The trial court denied the continuance but ruled that the new materials would not be admissible unless the Defendant “opened the door” during his testimony. On appeal, the Defendant seeks a new trial based on the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the emails. After a thorough review of the record, we discern no error and affirm the judgments.

An employee sued for workers’ compensation benefits alleging two distinct injuries on different dates: physical injuries sustained in a work-related motor vehicle collision in 2001 and mental injuries from an incident involving a severely abused infant in 2000. The employee settled her mental injury claim. The trial court’s judgment approving the settlement included future medical benefits for the employee’s mental injuries, but none for physical injuries related to the collision. Nine years later, the employee filed a motion to compel medical benefits for her physical injuries related to the collision. The trial court, in an order referencing this case (#13,393) and a later-filed case (#15,665), ordered the employer to provide medical benefits for the employee’s physical injuries. In a separate order, the trial court awarded the employee her attorney fees and costs. We vacate the trial court’s orders, finding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to compel medical benefits for the employee’s physical injuries.

In this appeal, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to prevent new cars sold in Canada from being imported into Tennessee and the rest of the United States in violation of Tennessee’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs contended that new car prices in Canada are significantly lower than prices for the same cars in the United States and that the effect of the conspiracy was to restrict competition and maintain significantly higher prices. The trial court approved a settlement agreement and dismissed the case with prejudice against certain defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

This is a divorce case. Husband appeals the trial court’s classification of three tracts of land as Wife’s separate property and its valuation of Husband’s bank account. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

An employee filed suit for workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a work-related motor vehicle collision. The trial court later dismissed the case with full prejudice based on a settlement approved by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (the “Department”). Over seven years later, the employee filed a motion in another workers’ compensation case to compel medical benefits for her injuries related to the collision. The trial court granted the employee’s motion to compel, referencing in its order this case number (#15,665) and the case number in which the motion was filed (#13,393). In a separate order, the trial court awarded the employee her attorney fees and costs. We vacate the trial court’s orders, finding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to compel medical benefits for the employee’s physical injuries.

The Defendant, Linda Anne Dunavant, was convicted of aggravated assault and filing a false police report and sentenced, respectively, to terms of three years and two years, to be served concurrently. On appeal, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated assault, and that the court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

At issue in this appeal is the custody of an 8-year-old boy. On one side is his maternal grandmother and her husband, who have raised the child since he was one year old, pursuant to a court order placing him in their custody. On the other side is the child’s father, who was incarcerated at the time the child was placed with his grandparents. When the father was released from incarceration, he filed a petition seeking visitation with the child; over the course of proceedings, he sought custody of the child. The juvenile court awarded custody to the father, holding that the he did not forfeit his superior parental rights and that the grandparents did not prove that the child would suffer substantial harm in the father’s care and custody. The grandparents appeal; finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Charles Steven Blocker (“Employee”) sustained a compensable injury to his cervical spine while working for Powell Valley Electric Cooperative (“Employer”) in November 2010. After returning to work, Employee suffered a second, gradual injury to his cervical spine in January 2013, which rendered him permanently and totally disabled. Employee filed an action against Employer and the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Second Injury Fund (“the Fund”). The trial court initially found Employee’s 2013 injury caused 9% vocational disability and apportioned 9% of the award to Employer and 91% to the Fund. After the Fund appealed, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel remanded the case for the trial court “to reassess Employee’s 2013 vocational disability” and “to make the appropriate assignment of the award to Employer and the Fund.” On remand, the trial court found the 2013 injury caused 20% vocational disability and apportioned 20% of the award to Employer and 80% to the Fund. The Fund again appeals, asserting the trial court incorrectly apportioned the award. 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 trial court’s judgment.

Appellants, owners of property near a proposed industrial park site, appeal the trial court’s grant of Appellee Savannah Industrial Development Corporation’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion. Appellants sought a declaratory judgment precluding the City of Savannah and, specifically, its industrial development corporation, from purchasing land outside the city’s corporate limits for development of an industrial park for the benefit of both the city and Hardin County. The trial court applied the Industrial Development Corporations Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-53-101, et seq. and the Industrial Park Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-16-201, et seq. and found that there was no prohibition against the industrial development corporation’s actions. The trial court, therefore, granted the industrial development corporation’s motion to dismiss and awarded the corporation its attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20- 12-119(c)(1). Because the industrial development corporation is a “governmental entity,” we hold that the trial court was precluded from awarding attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

The pro se petitioner, Luis G. Mendoza, appeals the Henderson County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his motion for writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the lower court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the summary dismissal of the motion.

The Appellant, John D. Henry, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI) per se, fifth offense, and driving on a revoked license and received an effective two-year sentence to be served as 150 days in jail with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motions to suppress evidence because his warrantless stop did not fall under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and because he did not voluntarily consent to his warrantless blood draw. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a detainer action in which the plaintiff bank was awarded a judgment of possession of the defendant’s property in general sessions court. The defendant refused to vacate the property and appealed to the circuit court. The plaintiff bank sought summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment and upheld the foreclosure sale. We affirm.

A father appeals the termination of parental rights to his daughter. The juvenile court found three statutory grounds for termination: abandonment by willful failure to visit, abandonment by willful failure to support, and substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans. The court also found that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, DCS declines to defend the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit. We conclude that the evidence was less than clear and convincing as to all of the statutory grounds found with respect to the father. Thus, we reverse the termination of the father’s parental rights

Jason Kane Ivey, Defendant, was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of misdemeanor theft based on alternative theories and one count of Class D felony burglary. The trial court merged the theft conviction in Count 3 into the theft conviction in Count 2 and then merged the theft conviction in Count 2 into the burglary conviction in Count 1 and sentenced Defendant to serve four years as a Range II multiple offender. Defendant claims that his burglary conviction “violated constitutional due process protections” because Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-402 is unconstitutionally vague and subsection 39-14-402(a)(3) failed to give him fair warning that his conduct was forbidden by the burglary statute. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and applicable law, we hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-402 is not unconstitutionally vague and that subsection 39-14-402(a)(3) provided fair warning to a person of common intelligence that a person could be convicted of burglary for committing theft after entering a building open to the public, knowing the owner had revoked its effective consent for the person to enter. We affirm the judgments of conviction.

A jury convicted Defendant, Nikia Bowens, of six counts of theft of property under the value of $500 and burglary in case number 105992, and of theft of property under the value of $500 and burglary in case number 106786. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve a total effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for his convictions in both cases. On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the theft convictions, but asserts that his burglary convictions violate the principles of due process under the Tennessee and United States Constitutions because Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-402(a)(3) is unconstitutionally vague and does not provide defendants fair warning that they can be prosecuted for burglary if they commit or attempt to commit a felony, theft or assault after entering a building open to the public knowing that the property owner has revoked its consent for them to enter. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we conclude that subsection 39-14- 402(a)(3) is not vague, that the word “building” in subsection -402(a)(3) is not ambiguous, and that Defendant’s due process rights were not violated by his burglary convictions. Thus, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, but remand for correction of judgments.

The Defendant, Christopher C. Solomon, entered an open guilty plea to aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and leaving the scene of an accident. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-three years and imposed a restriction banning the Defendant from driving for life. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence and erred in imposing a lifetime ban from driving. We conclude that the Defendant’s sentence is not excessive but that the trial court erred in imposing the lifetime driving ban. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment for the Defendant’s aggravated vehicular homicide conviction to reflect that the Defendant’s license is to be revoked in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-50-501(a)(1). We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.