APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, McArthur Bobo, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was deprived of his right to a full and complete hearing on his motion for new trial because the trial court confused his case with another case, that he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and that his due process rights were violated by the fact that he never received the statement of a key witness. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This case involves a property dispute regarding a fifty-foot strip of land that was historically used for railroad purposes. KT Group, LLC (plaintiff) filed an action to quiet title, naming Robert Lowe and his wife, Velma Lowe, as defendants. Each side claims to own the strip of land in fee simple absolute. The trial court determined that plaintiff owned the land in fee simple. Defendants appealed. We affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, C.J.S. and K.R.S. (petitioners) filed a joint petition for adoption and petition to terminate the rights of C.C.S. (father) and W.J.N.R. (mother) with respect to their only child, L.U.S. Father joined the petition as a copetitioner, consenting to the termination of his rights and to the adoption of the child. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother and father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and abandonment by failure to visit. By the same quantum of proof, the court found that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her rights. We vacate the court’s findings with respect to the ground of abandonment by failure to support; nevertheless, we affirm the court’s order terminating mother’s rights because there is clear and convincing evidence that termination is supported by the ground of abandonment by failure to visit and is in the best interest of L.U.S.

In this action for divorce, alimony was the only remaining issue at trial. After the hearing, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce declaring that wife is an economically disadvantaged spouse pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(f) and that husband is able to pay her alimony. The court held that there was no proof that wife was underemployed and no proof she could be rehabilitated; it therefore awarded wife alimony in futuro. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding wife alimony in futuro. We modify the trial court’s judgment so as to provide wife transitional alimony. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We remand this case to the trial court with instructions.

Following a jury trial in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, Defendant, Stephano Lee Weilacker, was found guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery for his role in a criminal episode at the Triangle Kwick Stop (Triangle Market) in Montgomery County. He received an effective sentence of twenty years to be served consecutively to a sentence received for another aggravated robbery. This is the fourth time the direct appeal has been before this court. Per the order of the Tennessee Supreme Court granting Defendant’s Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 application, we address three issues in this opinion: (1) plenary review of Defendant’s assertion that his motion to suppress evidence should have been granted by the trial court, (2) plenary review of Defendant’s issue that he is entitled to a new trial because of improper closing arguments by the prosecutor; and (3) plain error review of Defendant’s issue wherein he asserts that the trial court caused a reversible constructive amendment to the especially aggravated kidnapping count, and that there was a fatal variance between the proof and the allegations in the indictment. Following a thorough review, we reverse the judgments and remand for a new trial.

I agree with majority’s conclusion that after plenary review, Defendant is not entitled to relief on the suppression issues regarding his detention and arrest. I further agree with the majority’s conclusion that Defendant is not entitled to plain error relief on the indictment issue. However, I respectfully disagree that Defendant is entitled to a new trial for statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument.

Petitioner, James Rich, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, from the denial of a motion for judicial recusal filed by Kelley Speer Beaman (“Wife”) in the parties’ high profile divorce proceedings. Having reviewed the Petition for Recusal Appeal filed by Wife, together with the supplement to the Petition and the response in opposition to the Petition filed by Lee A. Beaman (“Husband”), we conclude that the Trial Judge should have granted the motion. The Trial Judge in this case conducted an independent investigation into the facts surrounding how and when Wife’s Trial Brief came into the possession of the online media outlet known as Scoop: Nashville, and his comments on the record regarding the results of his investigation create an appearance of prejudice against Wife and her counsel that require the Trial Judge’s recusal.  We therefore reverse the order of the Trial Court and remand the case for reassignment to a different judge. 

A truck driver, whose employer had no workers’ compensation insurance coverage, was injured after falling from his employer’s truck while tarping a load of goods at a manufacturer’s facility. The truck driver filed a workers’ compensation claim against the manufacturer, asserting that the manufacturer was the truck driver’s statutory employer under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113 (2014 & Supp. 2017). The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims granted the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the truck driver failed to establish that the manufacturer undertook work for an entity other than itself, retained the right of control over the conduct of the work, or that the truck driver’s conduct in tarping the load was part of the manufacturer’s regular business or the same type of work usually performed by its employees. After review, we affirm.

The Appellant, Felipe Gonzales, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and received an effective fifty-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement to police, that the trial court erred by not allowing him to cross-examine witnesses about possible bias, that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on attempt as a lesser-included offense of rape of a child, that his convictions violate double jeopardy, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from an Order for Conditional Judgment to enforce a routine garnishment of an obligor’s wages. The dispositive issue is whether an employer of an obligor has an affirmative duty to determine whether the aggregate amount of wages to be garnished from an obligor’s multiple employers exceeds the aggregate disposable earnings limits provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106. An employer of the obligor, Blue Shield EMS (“Blue Shield”), was served with a garnishment while a pre-existing wage assignment of the obligor’s wages from another employer was still in effect. Although none of the obligor’s wages from Blue Shield had been previously garnished, Blue Shield filed an answer to the garnishment stating, “We cannot process any deductions from [the obligor’s] paycheck at this time due to his total income already being garnished greater than 25%.” Upon motion of the obligor’s former wife for a conditional judgment, the trial court found that “Blue Shield did not have a valid legal reason for failing to withhold twenty-five percent (25%) of the employee’s net wages” and ordered Blue Shield to pay into the court the wages that should have been garnished and to honor the garnishment going forward until the judgment was satisfied. Having determined that an employer has no duty to consider the aggregate effect of garnishments served on other employers when answering a garnishment, we affirm.

T. Robert Hill (“Hill”) and Hill Boren, P.C. (collectively “Defendants”) appeal the November 6, 2017 order of the Chancery Court for Madison County (“the Trial Court”) finding Defendants in civil contempt. Defendants raise multiple issues regarding whether Defendants received proper notice, whether damages may be awarded absent a finding of willful contempt, whether the Trial Court erred in awarding damages pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-104, and whether the Trial Court erred in allowing Plaintiffs access to corporate documents. We find and hold that Defendants received sufficient notice, that damages may not be awarded absent a finding of willful contempt, that the Trial Court did not err in awarding damages pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-104 for the willful failure to turn over a computer server, and that the Trial Court did not err in allowing access to corporate documents. We, therefore, vacate the awards of damages for failure to turn over the copy machine and failure to turn over the Copitraks. We affirm the Trial Court’s holding Defendants in civil contempt with regard to the failure to turn over the server and awarding damages for this contempt. The remainder of the Trial Court’s order is affirmed.

The petitioner, Devon Brown, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2012 convictions of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief.

Petitioner, Terry Caraway, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and aggravated burglary. On December 15, 2004, Petitioner pleaded guilty to first degree premeditated murder, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment. On May 12, 2015, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to toll the post-conviction statute of limitations, claiming that he was mentally incompetent and that he was unable to understand the law and comply with the statute of limitations, and a pro se post-conviction petition, alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary. Petitioner was appointed counsel, and counsel filed an amended motion to toll the statute of limitations. An evidentiary hearing on the motion to toll the statute of limitations was held on February 25, 2016, and taken under advisement. An order was entered on December 25, 2016, granting Petitioner the services of an expert “to the extent allowed by law” to determine whether Petitioner suffered from mental illness at the time of the offenses. On August 3, 2017, the postconviction court entered an order denying Petitioner’s motion, in which the court concluded that Petitioner had been unable to present sufficient evidence to prove he suffered from mental illness during the applicable time period. The order effectively dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief, which was filed several years after the statute of limitations had expired. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The pro se Defendant, Tony Arnell Britton, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Thomas Edward Clardy, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and three counts of reckless endangerment. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance counsel, that he is actually innocent, and that the trial court erred by denying him the opportunity to make an offer of proof at the post-conviction hearing. After a thorough review, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and failed to prove that he is actually innocent. Though Petitioner should have been given the opportunity to make an offer of proof, we hold that this error by the post-conviction court was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In 1988, a Carter County jury convicted the Petitioner, Ricky Harris, of first degree murder. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions. See State v. Ricky Jerome Harris, No. 85, 1990 WL 171507, at *25 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 8, 1990), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 4, 1991). In 2017, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The trial court held a hearing and denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to coram nobis relief based upon newly discovered evidence as well as evidence withheld by the prosecution. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I agree with the majority’s well-reasoned conclusion that the trial court maintained jurisdiction over Defendant’s sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-212 to consider her petition for a suspended sentence. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court correctly modified the Defendant’s agreed upon sentence, which was the result of a fully negotiated plea agreement between Defendant and the State just mere months earlier. There is no evidence of post-sentencing information or developments that would warrant an alteration of the agreed upon manner of service of Defendant’s sentence. I respectfully dissent.

Defendant, Areanna O. Lloyd, entered guilty pleas to two counts of robbery in concert with two or more others in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-13-401 and 39-12-302, Class B felonies, and pursuant to the plea agreement was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven years, two months, and twelve days, in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) as a mitigated offender with release eligibility after service of twenty percent of the sentence. After Defendant was denied parole, she filed a “Petition for Suspended Sentence” (“the petition”). Following a hearing, the trial court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Defendant’s sentence and denied the petition. Defendant then filed a “Motion to Reconsider” (“the motion”), arguing that she had remained incarcerated in Rutherford County and was never transferred to the physical custody of TDOC, and therefore, the trial court retained “full jurisdiction over the manner of [D]efendant’s sentence service” pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-212(c) and (d)(1). Following a second hearing, the trial court granted the petition and ordered Defendant to serve the balance of her sentence on supervised probation, and the State filed the instant appeal. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by suspending the balance of the sentence service and placing her on probation.

The Petitioner, Charles Godspower, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that due process considerations should toll the running of the statute of limitations because he timely handed his petition to a prison guard during a period of “lockdown” in the prison. He further argues that his trial counsel were per se ineffective in his defense and that he should have been granted post-conviction funds for a mental evaluation. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition as time-barred.

In this post-divorce action, a mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, seeking modification of the residential parenting schedule. The father filed a counter-petition requesting that he be designated the primary residential parent. At the conclusion of the father’s direct examination, the mother moved for an involuntary dismissal of his counter-petition, arguing that he failed to prove a material change of circumstance that warranted a change in the primary residential parent. The trial court dismissed the father’s counter-petition and modified the residential parenting schedule. Because the trial court did not allow the father to complete his proof before granting the motion for involuntary dismissal, we vacate the trial court’s judgment in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

A jury convicted the Petitioner, Arthur Lee Jamison, Jr., of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of a substance containing cocaine within a drug-free school zone. The Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, asserting that he received the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel when trial counsel failed to communicate with him, failed to file pretrial motions, including a notice of his intent to use the entrapment defense, failed to investigate and summon witnesses, and gave deficient advice regarding testifying at trial. Because the Petitioner has failed to establish either deficiency or prejudice for each claim, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

A jury convicted the Petitioner, Clark Beauregard Waterford III, of second degree murder for the stabbing of Ms. Faye Burns, and the Petitioner was sentenced to serve forty years in prison. After the Petitioner’s conviction and sentencing, DNA evidence favorable to the Petitioner came to light, and the Petitioner sought post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court determined that the Petitioner had not received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that the Petitioner had not established entitlement to relief based on the State’s failure to provide exculpatory evidence, and that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief, and we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff/Appellant appeals the dismissal of her negligence action against Shelby County, Tennessee, brought pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court found that Appellant’s complaint contained a fatal deficiency in that it failed to allege Appellant’s injuries were sustained as a result of a government employee’s negligent act or omission while acting within the scope of his or her employment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition related to his guilty plea convictions of two counts of rape of a child, for which he is serving concurrent twenty-five-year sentences as a violent child rapist with 100% service. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition and argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.