APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellants appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, medical doctor. The trial court found that Appellant’s petition for declaratory judgment sounded in health care liability and was barred by the statute of limitations. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116(a)(1). Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

The Defendant, Damarkus Lowe, appeals his jury conviction for first degree murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant alleges the following errors: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, challenging the evidence establishing premeditation and criminal responsibility, and alleging that the accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated; (2) that admission of a packet of letters sent to the police anonymously, which contained a note from the anonymous source and three letters allegedly authored by the Defendant that he mailed from jail to his associates, was improper because the letters were not properly authenticated, contained inadmissible hearsay, violated his confrontation rights, and were more prejudicial than probative; (3) that recorded jail calls containing inadmissible hearsay were erroneously admitted in violation of his confrontation rights; (4) that testimony regarding his “street name” of “D-Ru” was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative; (5) that the trial court acted in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), when it failed to compel the State to disclose the name of a jailhouse informant who claimed to have information related to the victim’s murder; and (6) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument by improperly vouching for several witnesses’ credibility requiring plain error relief. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Josh A. Danoff, was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated statutory rape, and three counts of rape based upon alternative theories of the same offense. Upon motion of the State, the trial court dismissed one count of rape prior to trial. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the remaining counts as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve three years for his aggravated statutory rape conviction, eight years for each rape conviction, and 11 months and 29 days for his contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court merged the rape convictions and aggravated statutory rape conviction into one conviction of rape and ordered Defendant’s sentences to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of eight years. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; that the trial court committed plain error by allowing hearsay testimony; and that the trial court erred by failing to grant probation or split confinement. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, James B. Cobb, was convicted of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. He received a sentence of eleven months and twentynine days, suspended after forty-eight hours of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in excluding a defense expert’s curriculum vitae from evidence; (3) the State made improper closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s oral request for a jury instruction on character witnesses. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Grady Dewayne Carroll, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, and the Madison County Circuit Court summarily denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellant contends that his effective four-year sentences for his reckless endangerment and felony evading arrest convictions are illegal because the trial court used a prior juvenile adjudication for aggravated robbery to sentence him as a Range II, multiple offender. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of the motion.

The Petitioner, Corey Gray, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his untimely petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of four counts of attempted first degree premediated murder, four counts of aggravated assault, four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of felony evading arrest and resulting effective sentence of 104 years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by determining that due process did not require tolling the statute of limitations. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The trial court denied Appellant, employee, relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and employee appeals. Because the trial court’s judgment does not clearly show that it applied the correct legal standard in deciding the case, we vacate and remand.

Father appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to alter, amend, or modify parenting plan and award of attorney’s fees in favor of Mother. Because the appellate record contains neither a transcript nor a statement of the evidence required by Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are not able to review the trial court’s substantive holdings. Therefore, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Based on the plain language of the permanent parenting plan, Mother is awarded her attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this appeal.  

The Petitioner, Brett A. Patterson, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis from his 1988 convictions for two counts of first degree murder, first degree burglary, and aggravated rape and his effective sentence of life imprisonment plus forty years. The Petitioner contends that the court erred by denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court relative to the video recording allegations, but we remand for further consideration of the Petitioner’s motion to continue relative to the laboratory bench notes allegations.

While I understand my learned colleagues’ desire to bring finality and stability to the lives of these children who so desperately deserve it, I must unfortunately conclude that this case cannot be resolved based upon the order entered by the trial court. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to two children on the grounds of (1) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan and (2) persistence of conditions. She further challenges the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a premises liability case. Appellant, a construction worker, fell from scaffolding while working in Appellee’s factory. Specifically, Appellant ran an extension cord across the warehouse floor to reach an electrical outlet to power a screw gun used to install new sheetrock required in the warehouse renovation. Appellee’s employee drove a forklift over Appellant’s extension cord, entangling the cord and dislodging the scaffolding. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee finding that there were no disputes of material fact and that Appellee had no duty to warn Appellant of a dangerous condition that Appellant created. Because there are material factual disputes that preclude the grant of summary judgment, we reverse and remand.

This interlocutory appeal involves a health care liability action. Plaintiff gave written presuit notice of her claim to all potential defendants. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c) (Supp. 2013). Later, she filed a complaint against the same defendants. In doing so, she relied upon the 120-day extension of the one-year statute of limitation as provided for in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c). Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Prior to a hearing on those motions, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint. Plaintiff subsequently served each defendant with new pre-suit notice and later re-filed her complaint in reliance on the one-year savings statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105, and the 120-day extension pursuant to § 29-26-121(c). Defendants moved to dismiss the second complaint. The trial court denied defendants’ motions. In doing so, the court took “judicial notice” of the practice of some attorneys in the Second Judicial District of providing their adversaries with “blank” authorizations. The court ultimately held that the medical authorizations in the first pre-suit notice were not only HIPAA compliant, but “overly” so. The trial court concluded that, because the first pre-suit notice was, according to the court, valid, the first-filed complaint was timely filed. Upon the request of the defendants, the court granted them permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We likewise granted defendants permission to file a Rule 9 discretionary appeal. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the plaintiff’s suit with full prejudice.

The pro se Appellant, Johnny Coffey, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted Petitioner, Jennifer Marie Lopez, of the Class A felony offense of aggravated child neglect. She was sentenced to serve seventeen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Jennifer Lopez and Sergio H. Gonzalez, No. M2014-01701-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 6083216 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. March 24, 2016). Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Petitioner has appealed, asserting that she is entitled to relief based upon her trial counsel’s 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.

Larry Edward Moore, the Petitioner, was convicted of carjacking. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, challenging his Davidson County Criminal Court conviction for carjacking. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was a lesser-included offense of carjacking; (2) trial counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to keep the Petitioner informed of his case and for failing to have an effective trial strategy; and (3) trial counsel’s performance on appeal was deficient for failing to include the lesser-included instruction issue in the motion for new trial and on appeal. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The Petitioner, Jimmy Heard, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 2007 convictions for attempted second degree murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and evading arrest and his effective forty-four-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Petitioner, Clark Derrick Frazier, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 2007 conviction for second degree murder and his twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Kelly Scott Hood, appeals the Cumberland County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for his aggravated burglary, theft, and attempted theft convictions and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective eight-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Lee Harold Cromwell, was convicted of one count of reckless vehicular homicide and eight counts of reckless aggravated assault against nine different victims. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender and imposed an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for reckless aggravated assault and challenges various aspects of the jury instructions. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in not merging his eight aggravated assault convictions into his vehicular homicide conviction. Finally, the defendant generally challenges the trial court’s sentencing determinations and asserts the cumulative effect of the errors alleged rendered his trial unfair. After our review, we affirm the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions and the trial court properly sentenced the defendant, but conclude the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury as to reckless aggravated assault. Therefore, we vacate the defendant’s eight convictions for reckless aggravated assault and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial.

The Petitioner, Joe Clark Mitchell, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his sixth petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the judgments of conviction are void because this court lacked jurisdiction to modify his sentence without remanding to the trial court; the judgments from the appellate and trial courts are inconsistent and void; and the Giles and Maury County trial courts lacked jurisdiction to indict, convict, and sentence him. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father/Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support both the ground for termination and the trial court’s finding that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, we affirm and remand.

The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition for temporary emergency custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) after a mother from Alabama who was travelling through Tennessee with her two minor children was arrested on charges including reckless endangerment. The juvenile court determined that the children were dependent and neglected, and the mother appealed for a de novo hearing in circuit court. When an Alabama court entered an order granting custody to the children’s father, the circuit court lost jurisdiction, and the circuit court’s subsequent order finding the children dependent and neglected became null and void. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.

The defendant, Destiny White, appeals her Shelby County Criminal Court conviction for voluntary manslaughter, claiming the trial court erred by denying her request for judicial diversion. After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court placed undue weight on the victim’s death in support of its decision to deny judicial diversion and failed to explain how, if at all, it considered and weighed other applicable factors. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration.

Philip Roseman, now deceased, petitioned the trial court to set aside a quitclaim deed, which he admittedly executed, transferring title of his house to his son as trustee of the Philip Roseman 2012 Irrevocable Gift Trust. Philip Roseman averred that he did not have the requisite intent to make a complete gift when he executed the quitclaim deed. The trial court determined that the deed was valid and granted summary judgment to the trustee. We affirm.