APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Final Judgment of Divorce entered in this case reserved the issue of the division of any deficiency indebtedness resulting from the foreclosure of the parties’ marital residence prior to the time of trial.  The Permanent Parenting Plan, incorporated into the Final Judgment, also indicated that the precise amount of child support, as a portion of the total support payment ordered by the trial court, had yet to be determined.  As such, it is clear that the order appealed from does not resolve all issues raised in the proceedings below.   As a result of this jurisdictional defect, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

The Petitioner, Rodney Glover, was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit theft of property over $10,000, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and theft of property under $500 and was sentenced to fifty years of incarceration to be served at 100%. This Court affirmed the judgments and sentence on appeal. State v. Rodney Glover, No. M2011-00854-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 1071716, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 28, 2012), no perm. app. filed. In 2013, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Candace Renee Bennett, pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated child neglect in exchange for an agreed eight-year sentence. The trial court ordered that the Defendant serve her sentence on probation and that her sentence run concurrently with a sentence in another case. The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 contending that her sentence was illegal. She asked to withdraw her guilty plea and have the charges dismissed. The trial court denied her motion. On appeal, the Defendant contends that her sentence is illegal because it is not authorized by, and directly contravenes the criminal responsibility statute. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Jana Maria Deboe Howard Sisco (“Mother”) appeals the March 31, 2015 order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”) modifying the Permanent Parenting Plan entered when Mother and Robert Glynn Howard (“Father”) divorced. Mother raises issues regarding whether a material change in circumstances justifying a modification had occurred and, if so, whether a modification was in the best interest of the parties’ minor children. We find and hold that the March 31, 2015 order fails to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. We, therefore, vacate the March 31, 2015 order and remand this case to the Trial Court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. 

The Petitioner, Heather McMurry, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her convictions of numerous drug offenses within 1,000 feet of a school zone and resulting effective twelve-year sentence with a mandatory eight years to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, A-River City Bail Bond, Inc., appeals its suspension from writing bonds in the Thirtieth Judicial District due to its failure to comply with the local rules. The appellant argues that a local rule requiring the posting of at least $75,000 in cash or certificate of deposit with the Criminal Court Clerk does not apply to it and that the trial court failed to provide it with procedural due process when suspending its ability to write bonds. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jimmy Newell, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition in which he challenged the legality of his two convictions for theft of property between $1,000 and $10,000 and his effective four-year sentence concurrently and with parole eligibility after service of thirty percent of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed, and we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Appellant seeks review of three appellate judges’ denial of his motion asking them to recuse themselves. We find no bias, and no error, in the matters appellant raises and therefore deny the motion to recuse the judges.

The Mother and Father of three children were divorced in 2007; in the parenting plan Father was designated primary residential parent, and Mother and Father received equal parenting time. Five years after entry of the plan, the trial court found a material change in circumstances with respect to the oldest child; determined that modification of the parenting plan was in her best interest; and reduced Mother’s parenting time with that child. Seven months later, Mother filed a petition to modify the plan; Father answered and filed a counter-petition for contempt and modification of the parenting plan based on changed circumstances. A hearing was held on both petitions and the trial court entered an order which, inter alia, gave Father sole decision-making responsibility with respect to each of the children and reduced Mother’s parenting time. Both parties appeal, raising numerous issues. We vacate that portion of the judgment that sets the parenting time during the children’s vacation schedule and remand this issue for further consideration; in all other respects we affirm the judgment.    

I fully concur in the majority's opinion with one exception—I would grant Wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal. I respectfully dissent on this one issue.

The Petitioner, Sheddrick Harris, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 2010 first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery convictions and his effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus sixty years. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by denying relief because the trial court judge was without jurisdiction to preside over his trial after signing the search warrant executed by the police. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Odom, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 due to the Defendant’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing.  Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this post-divorce action, the husband filed a complaint alleging abuse of process on the part of the wife during the divorce proceedings. He asserted that prior to the parties' stipulation to grounds for divorce and presentation of a settlement agreement, subsequently adopted by the trial court in a final divorce judgment, the wife had filed a motion for contempt against him with the intent to harass him, cause him to incur unnecessary expense, and “weaken his resolve” to litigate for more favorable terms. The wife filed a motion to dismiss this action, which the trial court treated as a motion for summary judgment because the wife had requested that the court consider the record of the divorce proceedings. Following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the wife upon finding, inter alia, that the husband's complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Upon the wife's subsequent motion, the trial court imposed a sanction against the husband's counsel, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.02, in the amount of $9,745.25, comprising the wife's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in defending against this action. The husband appeals. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We deny the wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal.

This appeal involves the termination of a father's parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of his rights on the statutory ground of mental incompetence. The court further found that termination was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We affirm.

Defendant, Tony Ladd Meeks, 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.

Defendant, Leo H. Odom, is appealing the trial court’s denial of 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.

Petitioner, Martrell Holloway, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. The petition challenged Petitioner’s convictions for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The convictions resulted from guilty pleas pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement with the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office which was approved by the trial  court for a total sentence of 18 years. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In 1992, Terry Campbell (“Employee”) suffered injuries to his lumbar and cervical spine as a result of a workplace accident. In 1998, the trial court awarded permanent and total disability benefits and ordered the employer’s insurer, American Mining Insurance Company (“Insurer”), to provide medical treatment in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. Dr. Gregory Ball was Employee’s treating physician. In 2008, and again in 2010, Employee filed contempt petitions alleging Insurer failed to provide medical treatment recommended by Dr. Ball. On each occasion, the trial court found in favor of Employee. In 2013, Insurer filed a petition, asserting Dr. Ball’s treatment was neither reasonable nor necessary and seeking the removal of Dr. Ball as Employee’s physician. The trial court denied the petition and awarded attorney fees to Employee. Insurer appealed, asserting the trial court erred by denying its petition and awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court referred this appeal 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.

Appellant/Church appeals the trial court’s entry of default judgment against it and the trial court’s award of damages for breach of contract in favor of Appellee, an architectural and design firm. Appellee served its complaint for breach of contract on Appellant’s registered agent at an address other than the one listed with the Secretary of State. The trial court found that service was proper and entered default judgment against Appellant for failure to appear. Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Appellee for the alleged balance on the contract price, lost profits, and interest. We conclude that the default judgment was proper. However, as to the type and measure of damages, we vacate and remand.

This is a case, brought pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, involving a plaintiff who was injured when she slipped and fell in a municipal hospital owned and operated by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries after slipping in water that was on the hospital's floor. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the water and entered judgment in its favor. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

Appellant, the first, but not the highest nor successful bidder on a piece of real property in a delinquent tax property sale, filed a quo warranto action alleging that the tax sale was conducted illegally. The trial court dismissed appellant’s suit for lack of standing because the property at issue had been redeemed by an individual with a mortgage on the property. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Tristan Delandis Grant, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and theft under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court merged the theft conviction into the aggravated robbery conviction and sentenced the defendant to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Kevin Patterson aka John O’Keefe Varner aka John O’Keefe Kitchen, appeals his Coffee County Circuit Court jury convictions of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to sequester the jury, that the trial court should not have seated potential jurors who had served on the petit jury in a recent criminal trial, that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of attempted second degree murder.  Although we detect no error with regard to the defendant’s convictions, we find that the defendant’s sentence of life without the possibility of parole constitutes plain error because the State failed to comply with the notice requirements of Code section 40-35-120.  Accordingly, we affirm all of the defendant’s convictions as well as the five-year sentences imposed for the defendant’s convictions of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  We reverse the trial court’s finding that the defendant was a repeat violent offender, vacate the sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and remand the case for resentencing within the appropriate sentencing range on the defendant’s conviction of attempted second degree murder.

I concur with the lead opinion.  I write separately because I am sympathetic to the common sense approach that Judge Easter uses in the separate opinion (dissenting in part) to determine that the pre-trial notice substantially complied with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120.  After all, the violent nature of the prior offenses, second degree murder and facilitation of second degree murder, should be obvious, and who knows better than the Defendant that there were separate periods of incarceration, even if the Defendant does not know the dates of those periods.  An argument could also be made that a reasonable statutory interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120(i)(2) is that “shall” is mandatory as it relates to “[t]he district attorney general[’s] fil[ing] a statement with the court,” but “shall” is “merely directory” as it relates to “set[ting] forth the dates of the prior periods of incarceration, as well as the nature of the prior conviction offenses.”  See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-120(i)(2); Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 309 (Tenn. 2012).  In Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., our supreme court stated: “To determine whether the use of the word ‘shall’ in a statute is mandatory or merely directory, we look to see ‘whether the prescribed mode of action is of the essence of the thing to be accomplished.’”  Id. (citing 3 Norman J. Singer & J.D. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 57:2 (7th ed. 2008)); see alsoHoldredge v. City of Cleveland, 218 Tenn. 239, 402 S.W.2d 709, 713 (1966) (“[A] provision relating to the essence of the thing to be done, that is, to matters of substance, is mandatory, and when a fair interpretation of a statute . . . shows that the legislature intended a compliance with such provision to be essential to the validity of the act . . . , the statute must be regarded as mandatory.”).  Arguably, the essence to be accomplished by section 40-35-120(i)(2) is to place a defendant on notice that the state intends to seek to have him found to be a repeat violent offender and thereby face a sentence of life without possibility of parole.  If this statement is correct, then the other requirements are “merely directory” and substantial compliance should be sufficient.

I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusions with respect to the issues raised by Defendant in his direct appeal.  I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority as it relates to section V of the opinion.  I am unable to agree with the statement that the trial court committed an error that breached a clear and unequivocal rule of law in sentencing Defendant to life without the possibility of parole pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120.