APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a premises liability action in which the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that he sustained injury while using the restroom in a grocery store operated by the defendant. The court denied the defendant’s request for a directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury, which awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages. Following the denial of post-trial motions, the court approved the verdict but reduced the award to conform to the amount of damages pled. The defendant appeals, claiming the reduced award is not supported by material evidence. We affirm.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children.

A Lawrence County jury found the Defendant, Rachel Kay Bond, guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction.  The Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence incriminating text messages allegedly sent by the Defendant.  After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children.

The defendant, Lawrence Taylor III, aka “Pig,” was indicted for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The defendant argues on appeal that the guilty verdict is not supported by the evidence and the trial court improperly admitted a prior written statement of an unavailable witness into evidence. The State argues the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the trial court properly allowed the witness's prior statement to be read into evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Jerry Williams, of aggravated burglary and vandalism over $10,000, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years of supervised probation for each count. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it limited his cross-examination of the victim and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

A Gibson County jury found the Defendant, Thomas R. Boykin, guilty of two counts of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to thirty-five years imprisonment for each count to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of seventy years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and his sentence is excessive. After review, we dismiss this appeal because the Defendant failed to timely file a notice of appeal.

In this post-divorce matter, the parties have been litigating for several years regarding issues of co-parenting time, child support, and contempt. In 2013, the trial court reduced the father’s child support obligation based upon its finding that a significant variance existed between the prior child support amount and the new amount calculated utilizing the father’s income. The trial court ordered that such modification would begin as of May 2012, when the State of Tennessee filed a petition seeking modification on the father’s behalf. The father attempted to file an appeal of this matter in 2013, but the appeal was dismissed due to lack of a final order. Following remand, the trial court reviewed and adjusted the child support modification based upon demonstration of the father’s income from all sources, including an inheritance he received from a relative. A final order was entered July 27, 2015. The father has appealed the trial court’s judgment. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

An inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction housed at the Turney Center Industrial Complex in Only, Tennessee, filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari seeking review of his prison disciplinary conviction. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the inmate failed to pay prior court costs, violating Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-812, and filed an affidavit of indigency that contained falsities, violating Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-804. This appeal followed. We affirm the dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari on the basis that Petitioner failed to disclose all previously filed lawsuits in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-805 but modify it to the extent that the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 

This is a breach of contract case related to a commercial property located in Arkansas. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, equitable estoppel, and promissory estoppel. Following a hearing on Defendants‘ motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court dismissed all of the claims except for an alleged breach of contract by Defendant Hi-Speed, Inc. After a bench trial on this remaining claim, the trial court determined that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. We affirm.

This is a saving statute case, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-1-105. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s third product-liability case, which was filed within one year of the dismissal of her second lawsuit, but more than one year after the entry of the initial nonsuit in Appellant’s first lawsuit. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Joseph Floyd, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his DUI and reckless driving convictions, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition based on a lack of jurisdiction because his probation had expired. The State concedes that the court erroneously dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition.

The pro se petitioner, Cory O’Brien Johnson, alias Deshun Marshay Gibbs, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court violated his due process rights by not holding an evidentiary hearing to consider whether he was afforded appropriate pretrial jail credits. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for habeas corpus relief.

The pro se petitioner, James W. Clark, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, petition for writ of habeas corpus, and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion for correction of an illegal sentence. We affirm the summary dismissal of the petitions and motions pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Notice of Appeal in this termination of parental rights case was filed pro se by the appellant/mother on May 26, 2016. In it, she indicates her desire to appeal from a final judgment entered on May 5, 2015. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of G.D. (Mother) to her child, C.D. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of one ground supporting termination. The court also found, by the same quantum of proof, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother appeals. We affirm.

A boat repairman sued boat owners in general sessions court for a portion of the cost to repair their boat. The repairman was awarded less than he sought and appealed the case to the circuit court. The circuit court awarded the same amount to the repairman, and the repairman appealed the judgment to this Court. The record contains a statement of evidence, but it contains no transcript of the proceedings or any exhibits. We are unable to conduct a meaningful review based on the record in this case and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Landowner filed an action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County (“Metro”) on theories of inverse condemnation, detrimental reliance, and negligence to recover for damages to his home which occurred as a result of landslides on his property. Following trial, the court entered judgment in Metro’s favor on all claims. On appeal, landowner contends that the evidence preponderates against the court’s findings of fact as to the cause of the landslides and the finding that Metro’s expert witness was credible; that the court erred as a matter of law in holding that Metro’s actions were not purposeful or intentional for the purposes of an inverse condemnation claim; and that the court erred in not crediting his testimony in the valuation of his property. Metro asks this court to reverse the trial court’s determination that it owns the portion of land adjacent to landowner’s property in fee simple. We reverse the determination that Metro owns the land adjacent to the landowner’s property; in all other respects we affirm the judgment.    

This lawsuit was brought by two associations of commercial fishermen challenging proclamations enacted by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission (“TWRC”) that affect, among other matters, the species and sizes of fish that may be harvested, the types of equipment that may be used, the permissible locations for fishing, and fishing seasons. On appeal, the fishermen argue that the proclamations are invalid because the actions of the TWRC violated the Open Meetings Act and procedural due process, because the proclamations violate substantive due process, and because one of the commissioners had an impermissible conflict of interest. We find no merit to the fishermen’s arguments and, therefore, affirm the decision of the trial court.  

The Defendant, Ethan Alexander Self, was found guilty by a Hawkins County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2014). He was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, (2) the State improperly exercised a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror for a race-based reason, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (4) the court erred in denying the Defendant's motions for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to disclose evidence, (5) the court erred in denying his motions for a mistrial based upon the State's eliciting evidence in violation of the court's pretrial evidentiary rulings, (6) the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to preserve alarm clocks from the victim's bedroom, (7) the court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant and the victim's good relationship and lack of abuse, (8) the court erred in the procedure by which the jury inspected the gun used in the victim's homicide, (9) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the State's rebuttal argument, (10) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense, (11) cumulative trial error necessitates a new trial, and (12) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We conclude that there is no reversible error, and we accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of J.R.S. (Mother) and J.R.S.1 (Father) with respect to their child, D.R.S. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of four grounds supporting termination of the rights of each parent. The court also found, by the same standard of evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother and Father appeal. We affirm as modified.

This is a termination of parental rights case. M.L. (Mother) and M.O. (Stepfather) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of L.D.D. (Father) to his child, E.S.L. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of two grounds supporting termination. The court also found, by the same standard of evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Father appeals. We affirm.

I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after Dr. Brietstein testified that, in his opinion, the shooting was not accidental. As the majority notes, this testimony was elicited by the prosecutor in violation of the court’s earlier ruling which prohibited Dr. Brietstein from testifying to any opinion that the shooting was accidental or intentional.

This appeal arises from a finding of criminal contempt in a child support matter. Dawn Veronica Brown (“Mother”) filed a petition for contempt against her ex-husband Tadd Timothy Brown (“Father”) in the Chancery Court for Williamson County (“the Trial Court”). In her petition, Mother alleged numerous violations by Father of the parenting plan and marital dissolution agreement, including that Father had failed to pay child support toward their minor child (“the Child”). After a trial, the Trial Court found Father guilty on twelve counts of criminal contempt. Father appeals. We find and hold that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Father’s convictions for failure to pay child support. However, we reverse the count found against Father for his refusal to turn the Child over to maternal relatives rather than Mother over one specific summer week, and modify his sentence accordingly. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.