APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Charles Graham a/k/a Charles Stevenson, appeals as of right from the Hardeman County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, the Petitioner argued that his conviction for simple possession was improperly enhanced and that his conviction for tampering with evidence was invalid because the evidence was not destroyed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his conviction for simple possession is void because the trial court unlawfully relied on forty-year-old convictions from other states to enhance his sentence. Also, he argues that the trial court clerk's failure to include the judgment form for his simple possession charge in the record on direct appeal denied the Petitioner consideration of the merits of his direct appeal. Finally, the Petitioner argues that the cumulative effect of these two errors results in structural constitutional error, which invalidates his conviction for tampering with evidence. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal order of the habeas corpus court.

This appeal concerns termination of a mother’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Montgomery County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Autumn N. (“Mother”) to her minor child, Dillon E. (“the Child”). The central issue of this parental rights case is Mother’s alleged prescription drug abuse. After a trial, the Juvenile Court found that four grounds were proven against Mother sufficient to terminate her parental rights to the Child, and that termination of her parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to this Court. DCS argues that the Juvenile Court erred in declining to find one additional ground for termination. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety.

The Petitioner, Courtney Bishop, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of first degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery and resulting effective sentence of life plus three years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Ytockie Fuller aka Yteikie Washington, was convicted of first degree murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A). On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the first degree murder conviction arguing that the State failed to prove premeditation. Additionally, the defendant contends that statements made by the victim in a recorded telephone call prior to his death were inadmissible hearsay and that the State's multiple playing of the recording served to inflame the jury. After our review, we conclude that the defendant's arguments are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Alphonso Bowen, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve 12 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding the hearsay contents of an anonymous note; 2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach Defendant with evidence of a prior conviction; 3) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony in violation of its ruling on a motion in limine precluding discussion of Defendant's arrest; 4) whether the trial court erred by asking questions of the State's expert witness; 5) whether it was plain error for the trial court to allow a lay witness to give an expert opinion regarding Defendant's fingerprints; 6) whether the trial court erred by excluding testimony by Defendant regarding a photograph; 7) whether the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction; and 8) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors require a reversal of Defendant's conviction. Having reviewed the entire record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Darren Brown, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis after the coram nobis court determined that the petition was untimely. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Petitioner, Calvin E. Bartlett, received an effective ten-year sentence as the result of a January 2015 plea agreement that disposed of two felonies and six misdemeanors in two different cases in the Madison County Criminal Court. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were made unintelligently. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner timely appealed. Because Petitioner failed to prove that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the decision of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This is an appeal from a “Final Hearing Order” in a divorce action. That order, however, did not resolve the issue of whether the husband had improperly deducted amounts he expended for moving services and rental of a storage building from his pendente lite alimony obligation due to the wife. Because the order appealed does not resolve all claims presented in the proceedings below, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Wife challenges the trial court's decision authorizing the Department of Human Services to take her husband into protective custody pursuant to the Adult Protection Act. Because, after the trial court's decision, the adult taken into protective custody was released from DHS custody and later died, we have determined that this appeal is moot.

Defendant, Jeremy L. Saxton, was convicted of one count of assault and one count of resisting arrest.  As a result of the convictions, Defendant received judicial diversion with probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days.  After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.  Upon our review we determine that Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress because there was no evidence to suppress.  Further, we conclude that the record on appeal is incomplete, precluding our review of the sufficiency of the evidence.  Consequently, the judgments of the criminal court are affirmed and the matter is remanded for correction of a clerical error.

The Petitioner, Jeffery W. Dean, filed for post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated kidnapping and carjacking, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to explain the State’s evidence against the Petitioner and counsel’s trial strategy and by failing to prepare the Petitioner to testify at trial.  The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Antonio Terrell Pewitte, was convicted of aggravated child neglect and received a sentence of twenty years.  Defendant raises the following issues in his direct appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to require the State to make an election of offenses; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting multiple photographs of the victim’s injuries; (4) whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony; (5) whether the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; and (6) whether the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing.  Following a careful review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I join the majority in affirming Defendant’s conviction of child neglect.  However, I write separately because I conclude that the trial court erred by allowing Ms. Donnell to testify about statements made to her by the victim and the victim’s mother.

The Petitioner, Amilcar Crabeal Butler, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the trial court’s dismissal was improper because the trial court relied on State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015), which the Petitioner argues was wrongly decided.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Christopher D. Neighbours (“the Petitioner”) appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  The Petitioner contends that: (1)his due process rights were violated when the State failed to disclose a “potential plea deal” between the State and a cooperating co-defendant, who testified against the Petitioner at trial; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s vouching for a witness during closing argument; (3) appellate counsel was ineffective based upon counsel’s failure to appeal the imposition of consecutive sentencing; and (4) appellate counsel had an actual conflict of interest when he represented the Petitioner on direct appeal.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Antonio J. Beasley, Sr., appeals the summary denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, to correct perceived clerical errors in the challenged judgments. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant in an unlawful detainer action filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff. Two days later, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit, but the certificate of service on the notice indicated it was placed in the mail the same day that the counterclaim was filed. Based on the notice of voluntary dismissal, the trial court entered an order dismissing the action without prejudice. Defendant appeals, arguing that he should be permitted to proceed with his counterclaim. We affirm. 

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Sherry Dewitt, was acquitted of aggravated child abuse but convicted of aggravated child neglect.  She now appeals as of right from that conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the requisite mental state for that crime and that the child suffered an adverse effect to her health and welfare from the Defendant’s alleged neglect as statutorily required.  Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a knowing mens rea, but we reverse the Defendant’s conviction because there was insufficient proof that the Defendant’s delay in informing the parents about the child’s injuries or in seeking medical help had an actual, deleterious effect on the child’s health and welfare.  Therefore, the judgment is vacated, and the charge is dismissed.

The petitioner, William James Watt, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2012 Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of three counts of rape of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual battery, claiming that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Mother and Father appeal from the trial court‘s finding that clear and convincing evidence exists to establish that the children at issue are dependent and neglected and the victims of severe abuse at both parents‘ hands. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal, which stems from a divorce action, involves issues of child support and an award of attorney’s fees. The father asserts error in the trial court’s decision to award to the mother attorney’s fees in the amount of $25,000 as alimony in solido. The father also argues that his co-parenting time with the children was not properly calculated when setting his child support obligation. Following our thorough review of the evidence in light of the statutory factors, we conclude that the trial court properly awarded $25,000 for attorney’s fees to the mother as alimony in solido. We also determine, however, that the permanent parenting plan order entered by the trial court contains an internal inconsistency. We therefore vacate the permanent parenting plan order and remand to the trial court for entry of an appropriate and internally consistent permanent parenting plan order.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father/Appellant, who is incarcerated, appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child. The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on two statutory grounds: (1) abandonment, and (2) incarceration for more than ten years, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and (6), and on its finding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.  

Upon petition of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (“the Department”), the trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father. Among other things, the trial court concluded that Mother and Father had committed severe child abuse. The trial court also determined that the termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we reverse the trial court's finding that Mother abandoned the children pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). Moreover, we reverse the trial court's finding that Mother failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the family permanency plans created in this case. However, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the other grounds for termination relied upon by the trial court, as well as the trial court's finding that the termination of Mother and Father's parental rights is in the children's best interest.

This is a child custody action involving two minor children. In 2010, the biological parents of the children entered into an agreed order, which provided that the mother would be the primary residential custodian with the father enjoying visitation rights. Thereafter, the mother sent the children to live with their maternal grandfather. In July 2014, the father filed a petition seeking to modify the prior custody order and establish a permanent parenting plan wherein he would be designated the primary residential parent. The mother opposed this change, and the maternal grandfather sought to intervene in the action for the purpose of seeking custody of the children. The trial court awarded primary custody to the maternal grandfather, determining that a risk of substantial harm would result if custody of the children were awarded to the father. The father has appealed. Determining that there is a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding of a risk of substantial harm, we reverse the custody award to the grandfather. We remand this matter for a hearing regarding whether a material change in circumstance has occurred since the initial custody award and whether modifying the designation of primary residential parent from the mother to the father is in the children's best interest. We also remand this matter for the trial court to revisit the issue of changing the children's surnames. We affirm the trial court's denial of the grandfather's request for retroactive child support.

The Appellant, James Allen Gooch, is appealing the trial court’s order dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1  The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.  Said motion is hereby granted.