APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is the second interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 10B, filed by the appellants seeking to recuse the trial judge in the underlying
conservatorship action. After this Court entered its opinion and judgment in the first
interlocutory appeal, the trial judge entered several orders before the mandate was entered
with the trial court. In this second interlocutory appeal, appellants request, inter alia, that
we declare those orders void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After careful review,
we determine that the stay of trial court proceedings imposed by this Court in the first
interlocutory appeal remained in place until the mandate was entered. Taking into
consideration the limits of our review in a Rule 10B appeal, we vacate the trial court’s
orders entered between the time the appellants filed their second motion to recuse and the
trial court’s ruling on the recusal motion. We also vacate the trial court’s order denying
the second motion to recuse. Because the trial court’s order denying the second motion to
recuse is vacated, all remaining matters in this second interlocutory appeal are pretermitted
as moot.

The Circuit Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) dismissed the motion for summary judgment filed by Stephen Boesch (“Plaintiff”) due to his failure to file a separate statement of undisputed material facts in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.03. The Trial Court additionally denied Plaintiff’s oral motion for default judgment against Scott D. Hall (“Defendant”) and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has appealed. Upon our review, we affirm the Trial Court’s judgment.

The mother of an incarcerated person filed suit against the prison operator for injuries
allegedly sustained when a chair in the prison visitation room collapsed as she sat in it.
The trial court denied the mother’s motion for sanctions based upon allegations of
spoliation of evidence. The trial court then granted summary judgment in favor of the
prison operator. We affirm the trial court’s decisions on both motions.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Anthony Duane Gray, Jr., of assault,
kidnapping, possession with intent to sell or deliver heroin, four counts of possession with
the intent to sell or deliver four different scheduled drugs, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him as a Multiple Offender to an effective
sentence of fourteen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1)
the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever his offenses; (2) the trial court erred
when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found during the search of a motel room;
(3) the trial court erred with it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the
search of two cell phones; (4) the State violated his right to due process by intentionally
allowing false testimony; (5) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment
of acquittal to the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping; (6) the evidence was
insufficient to sustain his conviction for kidnapping; and (7) the trial court erred when it
denied his motion for new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Appellant filed a premises liability claim against the defendant store after she fell at its entrance. The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment. We affirm.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Pro se Petitioner, Alfonso Thomas Peck,1 was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts of aggravated rape, for which he received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily denied in part and granted in part. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the partial summary denial, arguing that his sentences are illegal because the judgment documents fail to specify the sentence length in years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims finding that Appellee Natacha Hudgins’ back injury was compensable and that the date of her maximum medical improvement was January 6, 2022.  The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51.  We affirm.

The Petitioner appeals as of right the Bradley County Criminal Court’s order dismissing his motion to correct illegal sentences. Upon our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to prepare a sufficient brief compliant with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b). Accordingly, the Petitioner’s issues are waived, and his appeal is dismissed.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital in this premises liability case, finding that the defendant had no notice of the alleged dangerous or defective condition on its premises. The plaintiff has appealed. Following our review, we determine that the plaintiff was not provided notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to all issues to be considered by the trial court at the summary judgment stage. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Antonio Glover, of aggravated rape for
which he received a sentence of seventeen years with the Tennessee Department of
Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial judge in preventing him from
impeaching the victim with evidence of the victim’s prior sexual history. Following our
review, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

Two neighboring property owners had the right to use the same easement for ingress and egress. For many years, the neighbors used and maintained a shared gravel road to access their properties. Then one property owner unilaterally removed gravel from part of the road and created an alternate route. The other property owner filed suit, seeking to protect his easement rights. The trial court held the owner who damaged the road liable for “acting beyond his legal rights” and “changing the nature and character of the easement.” Among other things, the court awarded the damaged party a judgment for the costs of the repairs plus pre-judgment interest and a permanent injunction. Because the evidence preponderates against the damages awarded, we modify the judgment by reducing the award. We also vacate the permanent injunction because the damaged property owner did not seek that relief. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

The appellant challenges his convictions on two charges of criminal contempt for violating an order of protection prohibiting him from contacting his former partner. The convictions arise from two communications between the appellant and the appellee when exchanging their minor child. We have determined that the underlying orders lack the required level of clarity and contain significant ambiguities. We, therefore, reverse the convictions.

The Petitioner, Roderick Bates, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial
of his post-conviction relief from his jury-trial convictions for especially aggravated
burglary and first degree murder, for which he is serving an effective life sentence. On
appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief for his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Connie Reguli, of one count of facilitation of custodial interference and two counts of being an accessory after the fact. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years of probation after service of thirty days in confinement and denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her convictions. She also asserts that the trial court erred by (1) failing to dismiss the indictment for its failure to include an essential element of the underlying felony of custodial interference; (2) failing to instruct the jury concerning the essential elements of custodial interference; and (3) failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of voluntary surrender and legal representation. Finally, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of split confinement and denying her request for judicial diversion. Consistent with our decision in State v. Hancock, 678 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023), we recognize that the principal’s actions in this case did not violate Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-306 at the time they occurred. As such, we hold that the Defendant cannot be guilty of facilitating the felony of custodial interference or being an accessory after the fact. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse the trial court’s judgments, vacate the Defendant’s convictions, and dismiss the case.

The Appellant, A Close Bonding Co., LLC, acting as the bail bond surety in the criminal
case of the Defendant, Jose S. Loredo, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial
of the Appellant’s motion to recuse and motion to set aside final forfeiture of the
Defendant’s bond. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a final order affirming the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s denial of a request for termination of registration on the Sex Offender Registry. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Michael Craft, Jackie Dewayne Davis, and Zachary Stuart Tablack, collectively “Defendants,” pled guilty as Range I offenders to two counts of voluntary manslaughter with the issue of judicial diversion and, alternatively, the length and manner of service of their sentences, to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced each Defendant to concurrent terms of six years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendants Davis and Tablack claim that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion, by denying probation, and by sentencing them to the maximum sentence. Defendant Craft claims that the court erred by imposing the maximum sentence. Discerning no reversible error, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Husband moved for relief from a final decree of divorce under Tennessee Rule of Civil
Procedure 60.02(2). He claimed that his former spouse intentionally misrepresented her
income and assets during the divorce proceedings. The trial court denied the motion. We
affirm.

Mother appeals the trial court’s finding that her children were dependent and neglected.
We affirm.

After a Shelby County jury trial, Defendant, Matthew Smith, was convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, robbery, and theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. The trial court sentenced him to an effective term of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that his dual convictions for robbery and theft violate his protections against double jeopardy. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions, but we also conclude the trial court should have merged Defendant’s convictions for robbery and theft. We, therefore, remand the case to the trial court to merge the appropriate counts but affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

This appeal arises from a petition for declaratory judgment concerning a quit claim deed.
By the quit claim deed, the grantor, now deceased, conveyed to the respondent an
undivided one-half interest in the property. Following the property description and
derivation clause, the deed expressly provided that it was the intention of the grantor and
the grantee to create a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. The respondent filed a
motion for summary judgment, asserting that the survivorship language in the deed was
sufficient to create a right of survivorship in the respondent. The trial court entered an
order denying the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and granting the petition for
declaratory judgment in favor of the petitioner. The respondent appealed. We reverse.

The Defendant signed a promissory note and borrowed $500,000 from the Plaintiffs, with the loan secured by his home. Months later, the parties entered into a note modification agreement that increased the principal to $900,000. The Defendant did not pay back the loan, making no payments, so the Plaintiffs sued to recover under the agreements. Over two years after the original answer was filed, the Defendant moved to amend his answer to add several affirmative defenses. The trial court denied the motion to amend. After a trial, the trial court found that the Defendant owed the Plaintiffs $843,011.47. The Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to amend and raises multiple other issues primarily relating to the amount owed. We find no error and affirm the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the children. The trial court also determined that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The plaintiff attorneys filed this action alleging tortious interference with a business relationship and unlawful procurement of breach of contract, Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-50-109, against the defendant attorney and his law firm for his defense of their former clients in an action to recover fees. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorney and the law firm. We affirm.