APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves termination of the parental rights of a mother and father to their three children. Following a report of drug exposure and environmental neglect, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) obtained emergency temporary custody of the children. Approximately nine months after the children were removed from the parents’ home, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse. The petition also sought to terminate the mother’s parental rights on the additional ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit, and it sought to terminate the father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent. The juvenile court found all grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Although we conclude that DCS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mother abandoned the children by willful failure to visit, we affirm the termination of parental rights. 

The Tennessee Attorney General opined that a tax exemption in favor of electric cooperatives found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-25-122(a) violates Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Board of Equalization began proceedings to recalculate the taxes of the electric cooperatives. Several electric cooperatives objected and maintained that the exemption under Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-25-122(a) was valid. The Board recalculated their taxes anyway. The electric cooperatives appealed. Although the Board of Equalization cannot rule on the constitutionality of the statute, we can. We find that Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-25-122(a) violates Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution.

In June 2013, the Petitioner, Tina Garrett, entered a “best interests” guilty plea to first degree murder in exchange for a life sentence.  She subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, among other things, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her plea was unknowing and involuntary.  Following a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied relief.  After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Anthony Dewight Washington (“the Petitioner”) appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  The Petitioner argues that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to file a motion asking for the recusal of the trial judge, failing to file a motion to suppress evidence from a search of the Petitioner’s home, and failing to communicate with the Petitioner, investigate witnesses, and develop a trial strategy or defense.  The Petitioner argues that counsel’s deficiency prejudiced him because, but for the deficiencies, he would have accepted the State’s plea offer instead of proceeding to trial.  Upon thorough review of the appellate record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Zachary David Strickland, was convicted of initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine and sentenced to ten years of incarceration.  After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal.  In the interests of justice, we waive the timely filing of the notice of appeal.  However, upon review of the evidence presented at trial, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.  Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

The trial court found that the Defendant, Timothy Lewayne Morton, violated the conditions of his two-year probation when he was arrested for disorderly conduct and public intoxication.  The Defendant pled guilty to the disorderly conduct charge prior to the revocation hearing.  The Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of a violation.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights. The trial court terminated her parental rights on the grounds that the children were victims of severe abuse and that mother had failed to financially support the children. The trial court also concluded that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was not clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by willful failure to support. But, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence of severe abuse and that termination was in the best interest of the children. Consequently, we affirm the termination of Mother's parental rights.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellant/mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two minor children on the statutory grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, Tenn. Code Ann §§36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); (2) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans, Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(2); and (3) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal from Appellant’s home, Tenn. Code Ann.§36-1-113(g)(3). Appellant also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

A Lincoln County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Zakkawanda Zawumba Moss, of six counts of first degree premeditated murder, and he received consecutive sentences of life in confinement.  On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court’s refusing to allow the jury to view a child witness’s video-recorded interview denied him of his right to due process, that the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of four witnesses into evidence, that the trial court should have granted his requests for a mistrial, that the trial court improperly admitted photographs into evidence that were overly prejudicial and cumulative, and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Shiema Moniqueke Reid, of perjury, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced her to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served on supervised probation.  On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Antwion Dowdy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and four counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014), 39-13-102 (2014) (amended 2015). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for first degree murder and five years for each aggravated assault. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Connie Kohnsabanh Vongphakdy, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to one count of theft $60,000 or more but less than $250,000; four counts of theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; and two counts of theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Appellant received a total effective sentence of eight years.  After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $178,300.  On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing.  The State concedes that the trial court did not consider the specific factors in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103 but contends that the trial court implicitly found that confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense and to serve as a deterrent.  Upon review, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and and remand for resentencing.

The petitioner, Kenneth Lewis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving a thirty-five-year sentence for second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he should have been granted relief because: (1) he was denied his rights to the effective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant his request for a transcript of the jury selection or to allow introduction of notes detailing reasons certain jurors were struck from the panel; and (3) that the law should be changed to allow funding for expert witnesses in non-capital post-conviction cases. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Rhonda Sowell, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Madison County to driving under the influence (“DUI”) (Count 1), driving under the influence with a with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or more (“DUI per se”) (Count 2), second offense DUI (Count 3), and violation of the light law pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-402 (Count 4). Prior to pleading guilty, the defendant filed two suppression motions challenging the basis for the initial stop and the evidence collected subsequent to the stop. After the trial court denied both motions, the defendant pled guilty to all charges reserving two certified questions of law concerning the constitutionality of the traffic stop and the evidence obtained as a result. Upon review of the record, we hold that the traffic stop of the defendant was constitutional, supported by both reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's suppression motions. However, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of separate judgment forms for each conviction, including those that were merged, in light of our Supreme Court's order in State v. Marquize Berry, No. W2014-00785-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 5 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2015) (order granting Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for appeal).

The Petitioner, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of first degree felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of criminally negligent homicide and resulting effective sentence of life in confinement.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he 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 Defendant, Devontavious Bryant, along with co-defendant Deacon Williams, was indicted with one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. Prior to trial, the State amended the aggravated robbery charge to robbery and dismissed the aggravated assault charge. The Defendant was tried separately from Mr. Williams and convicted of aggravated rape and robbery. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence collected from a warrantless search of his bedroom should have been suppressed; (2) the video recording of the victim's statement given minutes after the offense should have been suppressed under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated rape because his DNA was not found at the scene. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Robert Carlyle Clanton, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of ten drug-related offenses for the sale of methamphetamine to a confidential informant.  The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-three years and six months.  On appeal, Defendant’s sole issue is that the trial court imposed an excessively lengthy sentence.  Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Lizandro Guevara, appeals his eight convictions for aggravated sexual battery and four convictions for rape of a child.  He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions.  Because the evidence within the record is sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A jury convicted the defendant, Unjolee Tremone Moore, of first degree felony murder; attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; and the employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous offense, a Class C felony. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's refusal to dismiss based on the failure of police to collect a co-defendant's telephone, and the trial court's decision to admit the defendant's statement to police into evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to relief, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ricky Lee Webb, appeals from the Gibson County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari in which he sought relief from his 1983 jury convictions of first degree murder and rape on the basis of alleged erroneous evidentiary rulings. Because no appeal as of right lies from the trial court's ruling in this case, the appeal is dismissed.

This is a health care liability action. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants concerning the inadequate care and treatment received by the decedent. He then amended his complaint to add the defendant hospital as a party after the defendants alleged comparative fault. The defendant hospital moved to dismiss, arguing that the failure to attach a certificate of good faith applicable to it required dismissal. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, citing this court’s opinion in Sirbaugh v. Vanderbilt University, 469 S.W.3d 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This is a healthcare liability case. Appellees, patient and her husband, filed suit against Appellants, physician and employer. Appellants raised the affirmative defense of comparative fault based on the fact that Appellee/patient had been non-compliant with medical advice. Appellees moved for partial summary judgment on the affirmative defense of comparative fault. The trial court granted the motion, and Appellants appeal. Because expert testimony adduced during discovery creates a dispute of material fact as to the question of Appellees’ non-compliance with medical advice and the effect of such non-compliance on Appellees’ injury, the grant of summary judgment was error.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which the intervening plaintiff sought to establish priority lien status over the original plaintiff as well as a Rule 19 defendant. We affirm the decision of the Chancery Court.