APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a claim for attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses incurred by a third-party defendant in a wrongful death action. The third-party plaintiff filed the third-party complaint against the third-party defendant seeking indemnity. A jury found both the third-party plaintiff and third-party defendant at fault for the death in the underlying action, but because the third-party plaintiff was allocated more than 50% of the fault, the jury determined that the third-party plaintiff was not entitled to indemnification. The third-party defendant filed a post-trial motion for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending the third-party action. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Although we conclude that it did not lack subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm the denial of the third-party defendant’s motion.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to suppress evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of their house. The trial court found that, although Defendant Angela Hamm was on probation at the time of the search and was subject to warrantless searches as a condition of her probation, the search was invalid because the police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the search. On appeal, the State contends that (1) the search was supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) the search was reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances; (3) Angela Hamm consented to the search by agreeing to the warrantless search probation condition; and (4) the warrant search was valid as to Defendant David Lee Hamm under the doctrine of common authority. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the majority opinion, but I write separately to express my views regarding the additional issues that arise from warrantless, suspicionless searches of probationers conducted pursuant to a condition of probation. I believe that at a minimum, reasonable suspicion is required before the State may conduct a warrantless search of a probationer who is subject to a warrantless search requirement as a condition of probation. While neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Tennessee Supreme Court have addressed whether something less than reasonable suspicion would permit searches of probationers, both courts have addressed the issue as it related to parolees. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006); State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 (Tenn. 2009).

I dissent from the majority opinion for reasons which I will explain. The majority is correct that there is a split of authority as to whether reasonable suspicion must exist before a search may be made pursuant to a probation order providing that, as a condition of probation, the probationer is subject to warrantless searches. See Jay M. Zitter, Validity of Requirement That, as Condition of Probation, Defendant Submit to Warrantless Searches, 99 A.L.R.5th 557 (2002). However, I do not believe it is necessary for this court to make a determination as to this question, for it is clear that the officers had reasonable suspicion to search Angela Hamm’s residence.

The Petitioner, Michael Eugene Sample, was convicted in 1982 of two counts of felony murder and was sentenced to death. Following his unsuccessful direct appeal, he began filing, over the next twenty years, a series of various types of post-conviction petitions, all of which were unsuccessful. This appeal followed his claim, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, that he is intellectually disabled and not eligible to be executed. Thus, in his view, his sentence is illegal and void; and he is entitled to a hearing on his claim. Further, he argues that he is entitled to a writ of error audita querela and a writ of error coram nobis. The coram nobis court denied relief as to each of these claims and we affirm the judgment of that court.

The Petitioner, David Keen, raped and murdered the eight-year-old daughter of his girlfriend in March 1990, later discarding the body by throwing it into the Wolf River in Memphis. He pled guilty in 1991 to first degree murder and aggravated rape and was sentenced, respectively, to death and imprisonment for twenty years. See Keen v. State, 398 S.W.3d 594, 597-98 (Tenn. 2012). In his latest of many post-conviction filings, he argues that the Tennessee Supreme Court erred in its decision in Payne v. State, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016), which denies relief for his claims; that his coram nobis petition was not time-barred; and that he is entitled to relief under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 because his sentence is illegal. He additionally seeks advice from this court as to what other avenues he may utilize in seeking relief. The coram nobis court denied relief, and we affirm that decision and decline to provide the advisory opinion sought by the Petitioner.

Defendant, Marcus Gergish, was found guilty by a jury of one count of criminally negligent homicide and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery and was sentenced to serve an effective twenty-one-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by destroying evidence; (3) that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by misleading the jurors and misstating evidence; (4) that the trial court’s denial of a motion to continue, motion for expert funding, and refusal to allow the defense to call a witness on Defendant’s behalf denied Defendant a fair trial; (5) that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the issues of dying declarations and lost or destroyed evidence; (6) that the trial court failed to act as the Thirteenth Juror; and (7) that the cumulative effect of all the errors denied Defendant a fair trial. Following a careful review of the record, we find that Defendant’s motion for new trial was not timely filed. Therefore, all of Defendant’s issues except for sufficiency of the evidence are waived, and we decline to exercise our discretion to review the waived issues for plain error. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed.

A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility determined that a Knoxville attorney should receive a public censure based on his violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a). The trial court affirmed the hearing panel’s decision. After careful consideration, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Defendant, Francisco G. Parvin, was indicted by the Greene County Grand Jury for aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Count 1 and aggravated assault by the use of a deadly weapon in Count 2. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in Count 2 of the lesser-included offense of assault and sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, with 120 days to be served in jail and the remainder to be suspended on probation. The record does not contain a judgment form in Count 1, but the record indicates that only Count 2 was submitted for trial. Presumably, Count 1 was dismissed. The offenses in both counts were against the same victim. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction in Count 2. After a careful review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court granted a default judgment against the appellant for claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, and malicious prosecution.  Immediately after granting the default judgment, the trial court awarded the appellee damages without hearing proof.  The appellant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment.  The trial court denied the appellant’s motion.  We affirm the trial court’s decision in all regards except for its award of damages.  The case is remanded for a hearing on damages.

This is an invasion of privacy case filed by Betty Graham. It arises out of disclosures made by the defendants in an underlying health care liability action. In the underlying case, the defendants moved to dismiss Graham’s case on the ground that she (1) had failed to file a statutory-mandated pre-suit notice and (2) had failed to file with her complaint a certificate of good faith, all as required by the Health Care Liability Act (the Act). Graham claims that she could not comply with the Act because the defendants failed to provide her with the relevant medical records. To demonstrate that they had complied or attempted to comply with Graham’s requests for records, the defendants filed in the earlier case two affidavits detailing their response to her requests. After the dismissal of her health care liability action, Graham filed this case for invasion of privacy, alleging that the defendants had wrongfully disclosed her personal medical information by filing the affidavits in the underlying case. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Graham appeals. We affirm

This is the second appeal of this easement case.  Appellants, the servient land owners, appeal the trial court’s award of a monetary judgment in favor of Appellees, the owners of the dominant estate.  On remand, the parties agreed to have the trial court determine the precise location of the easement, but the trial court refused to hear the issue, and also refused to allow Appellants to make an offer of proof.  We vacate the damage award due to the trial court’s failure to make sufficient findings.  We also conclude that the trial court erred by refusing to determine the location of the easement.  Vacated and remanded.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case.

From the majority’s recitation of the facts in this case, we can all agree that the complainant, Ms. McKeogh, did not get good service overall from Mr. Garland’s office. However, the majority’s recitation of the facts also makes it clear that the problems of which Ms. McKeogh complains arise from the actions or inactions of Mr. Garland’s staff, particularly Ms. Harris and Ms. Snyder.
 

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Following Appellant’s knee surgery, Appellee provided Appellant transportation, by wheelchair van, from the rehabilitation hospital to a follow-up appointment with his surgeon. Prior to transport, Appellant signed an exculpatory agreement, releasing Appellee from all claims of ordinary negligence. Appellant was injured when he fell while trying to enter the van and filed suit against Appellee for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, finding that the exculpatory agreement was enforceable. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves a post-divorce motion for contempt. In her motion, Appellant/Wife averred that Appellee/Husband was in violation of the final decree of divorce. The trial court did not find Appellee in contempt, but entered an order enforcing its final decree of divorce regarding sale of the marital residence, Appellant’s access to the marital residence, and division of Appellee’s 401-K. The trial court also declined to award Appellant half of Appellee’s 2015 tax return. Because the trial court’s order, on the motion for contempt, appears to deviate from its previous order regarding division of Appellee’s 401-K, we reverse this portion of the trial court’s order. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Defendant, Roy Allen Carey, was convicted of hindering a secured creditor. He received an alternative sentence of two years’ probation after serving ten days in incarceration. On appeal, he argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the amended indictment was void; (3) the bill of particulars was insufficient; (4) the trial court committed error by not providing the requested jury instructions; and (5) the lack of notice as to the prohibited conduct violated his due process rights. After review, we find that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for hindering a secured creditor and that the trial court erred by not providing a jury instruction on the creation of a security interest. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and vacated.

The pro se Petitioner, Barry N. Waddell, appeals the denial of his second motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief.  Following our review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements governing an appeal from the denial of a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.    

The Petitioner, James Edward Bostic, Jr., appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell less than one-half gram of cocaine, a Class C felony, for which he is serving a twelve-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. Because the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition as untimely, we reverse its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Anthony Dowlen, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence for his convictions for robbery, possession of a weapon, and evading arrest, and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective twenty-five-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community corrections sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kendall J. Summers, appeals from the Giles County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation for his convictions for possession with the intent to sell 0.5 gram or more of methamphetamine, initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine, and felony possession of drug paraphernalia and its order that he 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.

An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the revocation of his parole. Because the inmate failed to file his petition within the sixty-day period required by statute, the chancery court lacked jurisdiction. We, therefore, affirm the chancery court’s judgment dismissing the case.

The Defendant, Gabriel Bandy, pleaded guilty to violating his probation. The court revoked his probation, denied his request for community corrections, and ordered the remainder of his twelve-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying community corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Joey Godwin, appeals the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 2007 convictions for three counts of possession with the intent to sell 0.5 gram or more of cocaine and his effective ten-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily denying relief because his concurrent sentences were in direct contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-20-111(b) (2014). We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The defendant, Comer Thomas Vance, appeals his Bedford County Circuit Court jury conviction of felony theft, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Former inmate and her husband filed a complaint against the State of Tennessee, alleging that state employees negligently supervised and retained a prison guard who sexually assaulted the inmate.  The Tennessee Claims Commission determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed the complaint.  We conclude that the former inmate’s claim falls within a category of claims for which the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction, specifically the “[n]egligent care, custody and control of persons.”  Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (Supp. 2016).  We also conclude the complaint does not seek to hold the State liable for the willful, malicious, or criminal act of a state employee.  Accordingly, we reverse.