APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Joseph B. Thompson, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a Rule 9 interlocutory appeal for a determination as to whether a person who has prevailed in a judicial election, but not yet assumed the office of judge, acts as a “state officer or employee” for purposes of the waiver provision set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(b), when making administrative staffing provisions. The plaintiff filed this action alleging tortious interference with an employment relationship by the defendant, a newly elected circuit court judge. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that he was entitled to immunity based upon his position as a state officer. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the defendant did not enjoy any form of immunity and that the waiver provision did not apply because he was not yet a state officer or employee when the actions at issue took place before he took the oath of office and assumed his position. The court denied the motion to dismiss but granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9. We granted permission to appeal and now affirm the decision of the trial court.

In 1979, a property owner (“Owner”) was notified that his property was in violation of the zoning ordinance, which allowed a maximum of two dwelling units in that area. The property contained five dwelling units. Owner appealed the zoning administrator’s decision to the board of zoning appeals (“BZA”), which permitted him to retain the five units for as long as he owned the property. In 2014, when Owner decided to sell the property, he petitioned the zoning administrator to remove the ownership condition so that another owner could maintain the five units. The administrator denied this request, and Owner appealed to the BZA, which removed the ownership condition. Five nearby property owners filed a writ of certiorari in chancery court challenging the BZA’s decision. The chancery court vacated the BZA’s decision, finding that the BZA acted arbitrarily in removing the ownership condition and then failing to consider the effect of this decision, namely, the creation of a new permanent variance without a determination that the property met the statutory standards. The chancery court remanded the case to the BZA for further consideration. Owner appeals, and we affirm the chancery court’s decision.

This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action filed by a musical performer after the defendant venue owner cancelled the show in which the plaintiff performed. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff performer and ordered the defendant to pay $70,744 in damages for breach of contract, $59,864.18 in prejudgment interest, and $90,000 in attorney’s fees. The defendant appeals, arguing that the awards of prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees were erroneous according to Nebraska law, which the parties chose to govern their contract. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.      

The defendant, Charles Speed, appeals the denial of his Rule 36.1 motion to correct what he alleges is an illegal sentence. He argues that his sentence is illegal because the State never filed a noticed to seek an enhanced sentence within ten days of the entry of his guilty plea. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Kentavis Jones, of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The State contends that the Petitioner's appeal is untimely and that he is not entitled to post-conviction relief. After review, we conclude there exists no error. We affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

On appeal, the defendant, Anne Elizabeth Cushing, has presented a certified question of law for our review. Following the denial of her motion to suppress, the defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”) but reserved a certified question. In the question, she challenges the denial of the motion to suppress because, according to the defendant, the results of the field sobriety tests should be inadmissible because she was entitled to be Mirandized when she was placed in the backseat of the police officer's patrol car while he conducted an investigation at the accident scene. She contends she was not free to leave and that, as such, the right to Miranda warnings had attached. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the question, as presented, is not dispositive of the case. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

This appeal arises from a long and turbulent custody dispute. Under the terms of the Permanent Parenting Plan, each parent was designated primary residential parent for one of the parties’ two minor children. A few months after the divorce, the father filed an emergency petition to be named the primary residential parent of the younger child. After a hearing, the trial court dissolved the ex parte restraining order but awarded temporary custody of the child to the father. Five months later, the father filed a second emergency petition to suspend visitation with the mother. After a hearing, the trial court dissolved the second restraining order but left the temporary custody order in place. Two years after the father filed the original petition to modify custody, the court conducted a final hearing. The court found a material change in circumstance had occurred sufficient to justify a change in custody and the custody change was in the best interest of the child. Because the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact concerning the issue of material change of circumstance, as required by Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and the credibility of witnesses is at issue, we are unable to conduct an effective appellate review. While normally we would remand this case to afford the trial court the opportunity to state its findings of fact, the judge who tried this case has retired. Therefore, we have no choice but to reverse the judgment and remand for a new hearing.   

The defendant, Derek Burgess, committed new criminal offenses while on probation, and the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. The defendant appeals the trial court’s order sentencing him to serve his sentence in incarceration, arguing that the trial court incorrectly calculated the length of his remaining sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action. The plaintiff is a corporate entity that represents a musical group. The defendant is a venue owner that cancelled the show in which the musical group performed. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant venue owner to pay $195,741.86 in damages for breach of contract and $166,353.77 in prejudgment interest. The defendant appeals, arguing that the award of prejudgment interest was erroneous according to Nebraska law, which the parties chose to govern their contract. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, Hester Croy, was convicted of theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred by ruling that her prior convictions for theft of property would be admissible for impeachment purposes if she testified. Following our review, we conclude that this issue is waived due to the defendant‟s failure to file a motion for new trial and that plain error review is not warranted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a contract to purchase real estate. Appellee contracted to sell Appellant the property at issue, subject to the property appraising at a certain value and the Appellant obtaining financing. Upon discovering that the property was subject to an easement held by the Tennessee Valley Authority, Appellant refused to purchase the property, contending that Appellee could not convey good and marketable title. Appellee filed suit for specific performance and also sought injunctive relief to prevent Appellant from purchasing other real property. In response, Appellant first filed a motion for summary judgment. Later, Appellant filed an answer and countercomplaint, seeking damages for breach of contract. Appellant then filed a motion for voluntary nonsuit of her countercomplaint and, on the same day, filed an amended motion for summary judgment. Appellee then filed a motion for leave to take a voluntary nonsuit. After Appellee filed his motion for nonsuit, Appellant filed a motion for attorney's fees, costs, and the return of earnest money. The trial court granted Appellee's motion for nonsuit, notwithstanding the Appellant's pending motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied Appellant's motion for attorney's fees and costs, but granted the motion for return of earnest money. Appellant appeals.

This is an age discrimination case. The 50-year-old plaintiff worked for the defendant company as a manager. In 2007, an internal investigation revealed that the plaintiff had violated two of the company’s policies. The plaintiff was ultimately terminated for violating the policies. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging age discrimination. The company filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie claim for discrimination or that the company’s explanation for terminating him was a pretext for discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Christopher Kinsler, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel elicited inadmissible hearsay testimony on cross-examination and then failed to object to the testimony. Following our thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, John David Luther, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and reckless aggravated assault, and resulting effective seventeen-year sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The majority holds that because a reconsideration of child support is necessarily “[i]ncident to” the reconfiguration of a parenting plan, the trial court’s failure to rule on the child support modification action implicit in all successful modification of parenting time proceedings deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Because I cannot accept that an agreed upon change in a parenting plan automatically necessitates an unrequested reconsideration of the parties’ child support obligations, I must respectfully dissent.

Following an announcement in open court that the parties agreed to the terms of a permanent parenting plan, the trial court entered an order purporting to adopt the agreed-upon plan. Father appeals from this order, arguing that certain terms of the plan entered by the trial court do not match the announced agreement. Having reviewed the record, we observe that there is neither an attached child support worksheet reflecting what Father's child support would be based on the modified parenting schedule, nor any ruling on child support by the trial court. Accordingly, we conclude that the order appealed is not a final judgment so as to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

The issue in this case is whether a coalition of media groups and a citizens organization, relying on the Tennessee Public Records Act, have the right to inspect a police department’s criminal investigative file while the criminal cases arising out of the investigation are ongoing. Four Vanderbilt University football players were indicted for aggravated rape and other criminal charges arising out of the alleged rape of a university student in a campus dormitory. Following the indictments, the Petitioners, a group of media organizations and a citizens group, made a Public Records Act request to inspect the police department’s files regarding its investigation of the alleged criminal conduct by the football players. The request was denied. We hold that the Public Records Act allows access to government records, but there are numerous statutory exceptions, including a state law exception in Tennessee Code Annotated section 10-7-503(a)(2), that shield some records from disclosure. Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure falls within the state law exception. Rule 16 provides for the release of certain information to the defendant in a criminal case, but does not authorize the release of any information to a nonparty to the case. Therefore, during the pendency of the criminal case and any collateral challenges to any conviction, Rule 16 governs the disclosure of information and only the defendant has the right to receive certain information. We hold that, based on Rule 16, the Petitioners have no right to the requested information during the pendency of the criminal cases and any collateral challenges. Jane Doe, the victim of the alleged criminal acts, intervened in this action to prevent disclosure of the investigative file, and particularly photographs and video images of the alleged assault. Based on our ruling today, these records are protected from disclosure until the conclusion of the criminal cases and all collateral challenges. At the conclusion of the criminal cases and following any guilty plea or conviction and sentencing, Tennessee Code Annotated section 10-7-504(q)(1) applies to block the release of Ms. Doe’s personal information and any photographic or video depiction of her. This requires no action on the part of Ms. Doe and no further court proceedings.      

I fully concur in the majority opinion in this case but write separately to respond to the dissent. 

In the past, this Court has consistently refrained from creating public policy exceptions to the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 10 7 101 to 702 (2012 & Supp. 2014), because the authority to enact such exceptions rests solely with the General Assembly. See, e.g., Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332, 344 (Tenn. 2007) (“[T]he General Assembly, not this Court, establishes the public policy of Tennessee.”). Departing from this principle, the majority has concluded that Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 exempts all police records from public disclosure during the course of a criminal prosecution. The plain language of the rule, however, protects from disclosure only work product and witness statements. Moreover, I believe that the victim of the alleged rape is entitled to an adjudication of her claim that public disclosure of the police records would violate her statutory and constitutional rights. I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.

At issue is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s request for attorney’s fees. Mother filed a petition to modify child support. Father filed an answer denying the petition and a counter-petition requesting, inter alia, that he be awarded primary custody of their child. The case was initially tried before the magistrate who denied Father’s petition and granted Mother’s petition to increase child support; however, the magistrate did not rule on Mother’s request for attorney’s fee. Both parties filed motions asking the juvenile court judge to conduct a de novo review. The juvenile court judge affirmed the magistrate’s recommendations; the judge also denied Mother’s request for attorney’s fees without explanation. On appeal, Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by refusing to award any of her attorney’s fees. Given the significant disparity in the parties’ income and realizing that Mother prevailed on the issues of child support and custody, we have determined that Mother is entitled to recover the attorney’s fees she reasonably incurred that relate to the issues of child support and custody and that she is entitled to recover attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the juvenile court to award the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees Mother incurred relating to her petition for modification of child support and Father’s petition for custody. We also remand for the juvenile court to award Mother her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal.

The defendant, Deangelo Key, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to nine years at 85% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Terrance Heard, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his August 2001 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. Because the petitioner failed to prepare an adequate record for our review, we presume the ruling of the post-conviction court is correct and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Reggie Carnell James, was convicted in 2007 of first degree murder and tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and ten years for the tampering with evidence conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively. This court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. State v. Reggie Carnell James, No. W2007-00775-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 636726, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 10, 2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2009). In April 2010, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel had been ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a statement the petitioner had made to police officers. Following a hearing on April 11, 2011, the post-conviction court entered an order on January 31, 2012, denying the petition. The notice of appeal for this decision was not filed until August 27, 2015. The State argues on appeal that the notice of appeal was untimely and that, as a result, the appeal should be dismissed. We conclude that the interest of justice does not require our waiving the late filing of the notice of appeal and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

The appellant, Adam Moates, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder, three counts of attempted second degree murder, and five counts of employing a weapon during the commission of a dangerous felony. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective twenty-six-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his attempted first degree murder convictions because it fails to show premeditation. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.