APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

After Employee suffered a lower back injury in the course and scope of his employment, the parties reached a settlement as to his permanent partial disability benefits. Employee later filed a petition for modification of the award, and the trial court found that Employee is permanently and totally disabled. Employer appeals, contending the trial court erred in finding Employee permanently and totally disabled and in finding Employer liable for ninety percent of the award. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation 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. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal in this case in order to determine (1) whether we should expressly overrule our decision in State v. Barney, 986 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1999), and (2) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in merging two of the Defendant’s convictions. We expressly overrule Barney and hold that double jeopardy principles apply when determining whether multiple convictions of sexual offenses arise from a single act of sexual assault. We further hold that, in light of the factors we adopt herein, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals did not err in merging two of the Defendant’s multiple convictions. Accordingly, albeit for different reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant, Edward Joseph Benesch II, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of aggravated child neglect and voluntary manslaughter, for which the trial court sentenced him to an effective term of eighteen years’ incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following allegations of error: (1) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police after he first requested an attorney and that request did not need clarification in the Defendant’s opinion; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions because he did not intentionally neglect the victim and because the element of adequate provocation was absent; (3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted photographs of the victim taken at the crime scene and during the victim’s autopsy given their gruesome nature; (4) that trial court erred by allowing a paramedic to testify as an expert about the “significance of the force” that caused the victim’s injuries; (5) that it was improper for the trial court to allow two witnesses, Shannon Edmonson and Shara Tisdale, to testify about the Defendant’s alleged drug usage and drugs being found in his home; (6) that the trial court should not have allowed testimony from the Defendant’s next-door neighbor that bore “no indicia of reliability and was completely unverifiable”; (7) that the trial court’s refusal to allow the Defendant’s “mitigation expert” to testify regarding how the Defendant told her he fell on the victim violated the Defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense; and (8) that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to play, as a prior inconsistent statement, the video recording of Judith Lane’s interview with law enforcement. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter because the Defendant was not adequately provoked by the eighteen-month-old victim, and therefore, that conviction is reversed and vacated. However, because the proof is sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide, we remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a reckless homicide conviction and imposition of a consecutive, four-year sentence for that conviction. The Defendant’s remaining issues do not entitle him to relief, and his conviction for aggravated child neglect is affirmed. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The Defendants, Kalpesh Patel and Pratikkumar V. Patel, were each convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, and one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-102, -103, -107. The trial court merged the solicitation convictions into the conspiracy convictions and sentenced each Defendant to fifteen years as Range I, standard offenders. On appeal, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) both Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder; (2) both Defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress evidence retrieved during warrantless searches of their cell phones; (3) Defendant Kalpesh contends that the trial court erred by not sentencing him as an especially mitigated offender; (4) Defendant Kalpesh contends that a new trial is warranted based on newly discovered evidence impeaching the State’s primary witness; (5) Defendant Pratikkumar contends that the State withheld exculpatory evidence; and (6) Defendant Pratikkumar contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Corey E. Huddleston, pleaded no contest to sexual battery on February 8, 2016. As a result of the no contest plea, he was sentenced to one year of incarceration and placed on the sex offender registry. Defendant sought to withdraw his no contest plea, and the trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

Petitioner, Anthony T. Brandon, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and simple possession of marijuana. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we determine that Petitioner has waived his claim for failing to present an adequate argument in his appellate brief. Waiver notwithstanding, we also determine that Petitioner failed to prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Following the trial court’s denial of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State sought and was granted permission for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In this appeal, the State argues that the trial court erroneously dismissed a burglary count in a superseding indictment against the Defendant, Danielle Chandria Jensen, who had previously been charged with theft of property valued at $500 or less, assault, and criminal trespass involving the same conduct. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-101(a)(1), 39-14-103, -105(a)(1), -402(a)(3), -405 (Supp. 2014). We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the burglary count.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jeanet Marie Covington, of aggravated arson, and the trial court sentenced her to serve fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant timely filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion, maintaining that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Petitioner, Maurice O. Byrd, Jr., of aggravated robbery, first degree felony murder, and premeditated first degree murder, and the Petitioner received an effective sentence of life. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgments. See State v. Maurice O. Byrd, No. M2010-02405-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 5989817, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 29, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2013). The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, and the post-conviction court denied relief following a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This negligence case was brought by Appellee/Tenant, who suffered injuries when a light fixture and a portion of the rental property ceiling fell due to a water leak. Tenant received a judgment in the general sessions court, and Appellant/Landlord appealed to the circuit court. Following de novo review, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Tenant. Landlord appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellee, homeowner’s association, filed suit against Appellants, owners of lots in the development, to collect association fees. The trial court held that Appellee, a non-profit corporation, was not authorized to formally assess association fees until it elected a board of directors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-58-101. The trial court charged Appellants’ with association fees accruing after the election of the board and also denied Appellants’ counter-complaint for quantum meruit damages allegedly accrued for upkeep of certain common areas, which remained under Appellants’ ownership. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

The defendant, Raymond Deshun Ross, appeals the dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2005 Henderson County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated assault, carjacking, felony theft, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Upon the request of the Department of Safety, the State filed a petition to declare William Christopher Davis, the Defendant, a “habitual offender” pursuant to Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act (“the MVHO Act”). The trial court dismissed the petition after concluding that the MVHO Act was ambiguous regarding when the State had a duty to file a petition. On appeal, the State argues that it has an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) from the dismissal of its petition and that the trial court erred in dismissing its petition on the grounds that the MVHO Act was ambiguous and penal in nature. The Defendant argues that the State does not have an appeal as of right from the dismissal of its petition and that the trial court correctly dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the facts of this case and applicable case law, we conclude that the State does not have an appeal as of right from the dismissal of a motor vehicle habitual offender petition, and thus we dismiss the State’s appeal.

The Defendant, Jonquarius Cunningham, was convicted of one count of attempted second degree murder, one count of reckless endangerment, two counts of employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-three years’ incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The majority opinion dismisses this appeal due to the failure of the appellant, Sarah R. P. B., the child’s mother, to sign the initial notice of appeal as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d) or to file an amended notice that included her signature within the thirty-day time period for perfecting appeals. The majority has concluded that although the amended notice of appeal “did contain Appellant’s signature, it was filed . . . more than thirty days after the entry of the trial court’s judgment. As such, it, too, is insufficient to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on this Court.” I recognize that the majority opinion is based on two recent Court of Appeals decisions, but I respectfully disagree with those decisions and with the notion that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d) is jurisdictional. I also disagree with the notion that the statute compels this court to dismiss appeals in parental termination cases without affording the parent the opportunity to cure the defect by subsequently signing an amended notice of appeal even if that occurs after the expiration of the thirty-day time period set out in Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). 

This is a termination of parental rights case. Upon the trial court’s entry of an order terminating her parental rights, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. However, Appellant did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-124(d) (Supp. 2016) in that she failed to sign the notice of appeal. Although Appellant attempted to correct the error by filing an amended notice of appeal, the amended notice was filed after the thirty day time period for perfecting appeals had expired. As such, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal, and it is dismissed with prejudice.

The trial court dismissed this lawsuit because proper service of process was not effectuated on the defendant. Because the defendant waived the specific defense relied upon by the trial court to dismiss this case by failing to comply with Rule 8.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

This is an appeal from a final decree of adoption following the entry of an order terminating the parental rights of the appellant to her minor child. The only notice of appeal filed by the appellant within the time provided by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) for the filing of a notice of appeal did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-124(d), which states: “Any notice of appeal filed in a termination of parental rights action shall be signed by the appellant.” Because this notice of appeal was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, this appeal is dismissed.

This appeal arises from a taxpayer’s successful challenge of the appraisal value assigned to his real property by the Roane County Property Assessor. The taxpayer filed a petition for judicial review challenging an administrative decision that affirmed the assessor’s valuation. The trial court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, overturning the administrative decision and ordering Roane County to pay the taxpayer’s attorney’s fees. On appeal, Roane County argues that the trial court had no authority to assess attorney’s fees against it. We agree and reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees.

The Petitioner, Elza Evans III, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and his effective sentence of two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial and on appeal. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.