APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to two children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) abandonment by willful failure to provide support; (3) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans; and (4) persistence of conditions that precipitated the children’s removal from Mother’s custody. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

In this divorce case, Terry Joe McBroom appeals the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro to Kelly Loretta Folkerts McBroom in the amount of $980 per month for three years or until Husband began drawing his retirement pension. The trial court ordered that once Husband began drawing his pension, which the parties agree will happen no later than April of 2019, the amount of spousal support will be reduced to $720. The court further ruled that Husband’s support obligation would cease when Wife began drawing Social Security benefits. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

The State appeals from the post-conviction court’s grant of post-conviction relief to Petitioner, Charles Bradford Stewart. Petitioner was convicted of vehicular assault and originally sentenced to serve twelve years as a career offender, with split confinement of one year in jail and eleven years in community corrections. The State appealed the sentence on the basis that community corrections was erroneously granted. This court reversed and remanded. State v. Charles B. Stewart, No. M2010-01948-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 4794942, at *1 and *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 11, 2011). Upon remand the trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve the entirety of the twelve-year sentence by incarceration. This Court affirmed. State v. Stewart, 439 S.W.3d 906, 907-08 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). Petitioner timely filed, pro se, a petition for post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed, and Petitioner subsequently filed a “corrected” petition. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief. After review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and reinstate the judgment of conviction.

The issue in this workers’ compensation appeal is whether a Tennessee trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a workers’ compensation claim.  James and Elizabeth Russell, residents of Johnson City, Tennessee, were employed by Transco Lines, Inc. (“Employer”), an Arkansas company headquartered in Russellville, Arkansas.  The Russells, who were team truck drivers, were injured on July 5, 2013, in a motor vehicle accident near Shreveport, Louisiana.  Employer and its insurer, Triangle Insurance Company (“Insurer”), accepted the Russells’ workers’ compensation claims as compensable and paid benefits under Arkansas law.  In October 2013, the Russells, through their counsel, filed a Request for Benefit Review Conference with the Tennessee Department of Labor.  No additional action occurred in Tennessee, and benefits continued to be paid according to Arkansas law.  After the administrative process was exhausted, the Russells filed this action in the Circuit Court for Washington County against Employer and Insurer, requesting compensation benefits under the workers’ compensation laws of Tennessee.  Employer argued that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and that even if it had jurisdiction, the Russells had made an election of remedies and were precluded from pursuing benefits in Tennessee.  The trial court ruled for the Russells, holding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and that the Russells had not made an election of remedies.  The trial court awarded Mr. Russell 65% permanent partial disability and Ms. Russell 85% permanent partial disability.  Employer and Insurer appealed.  The 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 pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Humphreys County jury convicted the Defendant, Stephen W. Jaco, of driving under the influence (DUI) and unlawfully possessing a firearm while under the influence of alcohol. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each conviction to be served concurrently and on probation, after serving four days in jail. The trial court fined the Defendant $350 for his DUI conviction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his DUI conviction, the trial court’s imposition of a fine, the trial court’s failure to join all charges in one indictment, and the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy principles. We conclude that the trial court erred in imposing the fine for the Defendant’s DUI conviction, and we reverse the trial court’s imposition of the fine and remand the matter for the empaneling of a jury to fix the fine. The trial court’s judgments are otherwise affirmed.

The Defendant, Montreal Portis Robinson, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and robbery, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to eight years for the aggravated robbery conviction and three years for the robbery conviction, to be served consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction for an effective term of eleven years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him of aggravated robbery and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Collier, of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years of incarceration as a persistent offender. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, George Martin Zickefoose, pleaded guilty to vandalism valued between $1,000 and $10,000, theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000, and burglary, with the trial court to determine the sentences. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered concurrent four-year sentences for each count for an effective four-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A property owner who wished to construct and operate a quarry sought a declaratory judgment that a Sumner County Zoning Resolution, which was alleged to exclude quarrying and mining activities, is unconstitutional and in violation of the Tennessee zoning enabling statutes. A group of adjoining property owners were permitted to intervene in the proceeding, and the court granted summary judgment to the county and adjoining property owners. The property owner now appeals. We find that the evidence relied upon by the property owner does not establish that the ordinance at issue prohibits all quarrying activities and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Deangelo Taylor, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of second degree murder and attempted aggravated robbery, claiming that the trial court erred by admitting certain witness testimony and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Marcus Puckett, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of driving under the influence (“DUI”), claiming that the trial court erred by permitting the State to play the video recording of the defendant’s traffic stop in its entirety in violation of his constitutional rights. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This post-divorce case concerns parental relocation.  Mother, the primary residential parent, sought to relocate to Texas, citing an employment offer.  Father objected to the relocation, arguing that the move had no reasonable purpose and that Mother’s real purpose for relocating is to be closer to her boyfriend. The trial court denied mother’s request to relocate based on mother’s perjury in the trial court’s presence and on the finding that the real purpose of mother’s proposed move is to be closer to her boyfriend. We reverse the trial court’s decision because we determine that father failed to carry his burden of proof.

We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal in this case in order to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the evidence was not sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction of aggravated stalking. The Court of Criminal Appeals reduced the Defendant’s conviction to misdemeanor stalking after concluding that the State had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant knowingly violated an order of protection. We hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals misapplied the standard of review and so committed reversible error. Because the proof was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the Defendant had actual knowledge of the order of protection issued against him on August 20, 2010, the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction of aggravated stalking. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s judgment.

The pro se Appellant, Felicia Annette Mitchell, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Circuit Court’s order summarily dismissing her motion to correct illegal sentences. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court.

Father appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for equal parenting time with the parties’ children and failure to grant father a fault-based divorce based on mother’s infidelity. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves an attempt to challenge the legality of a gun show ban that was adopted for the Tennessee State Fairgrounds. The trial court dismissed the complaint on numerous alternative grounds. We affirm.

The defendant, Kaylecia Woodard, appeals her Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated robbery, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction and that the criminal gang enhancement statute, which was applied to enhance her sentence, is unconstitutional. We discern no infirmity relative to the guilt phase of the defendant’s trial and affirm the defendant’s conviction of aggravated robbery. Because, as this court has now repeatedly concluded, that portion of the criminal gang enhancement statute used to enhance the defendant’s sentence is unconstitutional, we vacate the criminal gang enhancement and the 15-year sentence, modify the judgment to reflect a Class B felony conviction of aggravated robbery, and remand the case for resentencing.

Roger Elliott (“the Appellant”) was found guilty of “improper passing” by the city judge of the Municipal Court of Church Hill and appealed to the circuit court. In a trial de novo, the Appellant was found guilty of violating Tennessee Code Annotated section 55- 8-118 and was fined twenty-five dollars. Because the Appellant was found guilty in municipal court of violating a municipal ordinance, a civil offense; the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court in the trial de novo was limited to a violation of the municipal ordinance. The circuit court erred in finding the Appellant guilty of violating a state criminal statute. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial to determine if the Appellant violated a municipal ordinance of the City of Church Hill.

A Jackson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Petitioner, Michelle Dawn Shoemaker, of first degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first degree premeditated murder, solicitation of first degree premeditated murder, and tampering with evidence, and she received an effective life sentence. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit from a co-conspirator, who was also the Petitioner’s mother, stating that the Petitioner was not involved in the victim’s death. The coram nobis court summarily denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

A Rutherford County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Brandon Frost, of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of attempted aggravated robbery.  The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions, contending that he did not demand money or property from the attempted aggravated robbery victim and that his confinement of the kidnapping victims was incidental to the robbery offenses.  The Appellant also contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider mitigating factors when determining the length of his sentences and by failing to grant alternative sentencing.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the probate administration of an estate. The principal issues concern a certificate of deposit and the trial court’s approval of attorney fees paid from the estate to the estate’s first attorney. The trial court awarded the certificate of deposit to the decedent’s son, finding that the certificate of deposit passed to the son as the surviving joint tenant. With respect to attorney fees paid to estate’s first attorney, the trial court approved fees in the amount of $12,400 and disapproved fees in the amount of $7,600. The decedent’s daughter appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

A dispute among members of a church arose over control of the church. One group of members incorporated and then filed suit against individual members of the church seeking to quite title to certain real property. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In granting the individual church members’ motion and denying the corporation’s motion, the trial court found the church to be congregationally governed with a clear and established practice for handling real property transactions. We conclude that the corporation lacked standing to bring the action and that the corporation’s case should be dismissed on that basis. Therefore, we reverse.  

Post-divorce proceeding wherein Mother petitioned the court for a modification of the parenting plan and to increase Father’s child support obligation; following a hearing, the court granted her petition. Father appeals the upward deviation to his basic support obligation to pay a portion of the children’s extracurricular activities, the failure to give Father credit for additional funds he paid Mother each month, and the award of attorney’s fees to Mother. Upon consideration of the record, we discern no error and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.  

The petitioner, Emmanuel Bibb Houston, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2013 Bedford County Circuit Court jury convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves an attempt by Omer G. Kennedy and Angela Helms (landowners) to exercise their right of redemption with respect to their property sold at a delinquent tax sale. Jon Johnson (tax sale purchaser) bought the property on January 13, 2015. Within the one-year redemption period, landowners paid $37,892.81, the amount they thought was required to redeem the property. Tax sale purchaser filed a motion for additional funds, consisting of payments he had made for insurance on the property and interest, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2701 (Supp. 2016). The trial court granted the motion in an order entered January 11, 2016. The order gave landowners 30 days to pay the additional amount. Because notice of the order was not sent to their last known address, landowners did not receive the notice until after the 30 days had passed. They paid the additional amount of $5,869.43 on February 18, 2016. Tax sale purchaser moved the court to deny the redemption, arguing that the payment was not timely. The trial court denied the motion, holding that its order of January 11, 2016, was void because it was not effectively entered under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 58. and not effectively served under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5. Alternatively, the trial court ruled that landowners were entitled to relief for excusable neglect under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60. Tax sale purchaser appeals. We affirm.