APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Court has decided that an indigent parent has the right to assistance of counsel—but not the right to effective assistance of counsel—in a parental termination proceeding. I believe that the vast majority of lawyers provide competent representation as required by our Rules of Professional Conduct. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPCs 1.1 & 1.3. But in those rare situations where a lawyer makes a mistake or fails to do his or her duty to such an extent that the termination proceeding is not fundamentally fair, I favor providing the parent with an opportunity to seek relief. In my view, providing counsel for an indigent parent but not requiring counsel to render effective representation is an empty gesture.  

We granted review in this case to decide (1) whether an indigent parent’s right to appointed counsel in a parental termination proceeding includes the right to challenge an order terminating parental rights based on ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals must review any ground the trial court relied on to terminate parental rights when a parent fails to raise all grounds for termination on appeal. We hold that parents are constitutionally entitled to fundamentally fair procedures in parental termination proceedings. Nevertheless, this constitutional mandate does not require us to adopt a procedure by which parents may collaterally attack orders terminating parental rights based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, we hold that appellate courts must review a trial court’s findings regarding all grounds for termination and whether termination is in a child’s best interests, even if a parent fails to challenge these findings on appeal. Having reviewed the record on appeal in accordance with these holdings, we affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights.

The trial court entered a final judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the appellee. Appellants appealed. Due to deficiencies in the appellants' brief to this Court, we conclude that they have waived their issues on appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant, John N. Moffitt, was convicted of reckless aggravated assault and sentenced to four years' incarceration to be served at 30 percent release eligibility. Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution and a $2,500 fine. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that his conduct must have caused serious bodily injury; that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's order of restitution; and that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence within the applicable range. Having carefully reviewed the record before us, we affirm Defendant's conviction and sentence. However, we reduce the amount of restitution and remand this case to the trial court to determine Defendant's ability to pay restitution.

Defendant, Daetrus Pilate, appeals his convictions for rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, sexual battery by an authority figure, and incest and also appeals his effective sentence of forty-nine years. Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred by permitting the State to present evidence that violated the rules of discovery; (2) the trial court erred by admitting a prior consistent statement of the victim; (3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Defendant's arrest and giving a jury instruction on flight; (4) cumulative error requires reversal of the convictions; (5) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (6) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The Department of Children's Services (DCS) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of A.C.P. (Mother) with respect to her three minor children, ages twenty-two months to six years at the time of trial. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds. The court found the same quantum of evidence supporting the conclusion that termination of Mother‟s rights is in the children's best interest. Mother appeals. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

In September 24, 2014, the Marshall County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Johnthan Tyler Ryan Tyree, for two counts of aggravated assault involving the use of a deadly weapon.  The Defendant entered a best interest guilty plea to the charged offenses with sentencing reserved.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to four years and nine months in the Department of Correction for each count.  The trial court merged Count 2 into Count 1, finding the two offenses arose from a single incident.The sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a Rutherford County sentence arising from criminal offenses committed while the Defendant was released on bail in this case.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that his sentence is excessive and contrary to law.  Following our review, we find no error in sentencing and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This action concerns a petition to set aside a tax sale as void for lack of notice to the original property owner. The purchaser of the property filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the original owner was not entitled to notice, that the petitioner received actual notice as the current owner, and that the petition was untimely. The petitioner countered with a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner received actual notice of the sale and that the time for filing such actions had passed. The petitioner appeals. We affirm.

This action concerns a petition for custody filed by the maternal grandmother of three minor children. The juvenile court denied the petition, and the circuit court affirmed the denial on appeal following a de novo hearing. The maternal grandmother now appeals to this court. We dismiss the appeal in light of the adoption of the children during the pendency of this appeal.

According to the allegations of the pro se post-conviction petition, the Petitioner, Timothy Coleman, pleaded guilty to initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine and received a nine-year sentence. He alleged that the date of the judgment was March 7, 2014, and that no appeal was filed. He filed a post-conviction petition on July 6, 2015, alleging that due process required tolling of the one-year post-conviction statute of limitations due to his mental incompetency. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the case on the basis of the statute of limitations. He also contends that newly discovered evidence may establish his actual innocence of the offense. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Sylvia Folger (“Wife”) sued Robert Folger (“Husband”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court, among other things, awarded Wife transitional alimony. On appeal, Wife raises a number of issues. Because of Wife's pronounced economic disadvantage relative to Husband, we modify the judgment of the Trial Court to increase the amount of Wife's transitional alimony, and remand this case for the Trial Court to award Wife attorney's fees as alimony in solido as well as her reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Petitioner, Chauquinn Bernard, pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-418(e) and received the agreed-upon sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served concurrently with a ten-year sentence for aggravated burglary that he was already serving. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntariness of his guilty plea. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant stands convicted of possession with the intent to sell not less than one-half ounce but not more than ten pounds of marijuana, a Class E felony; possession with intent to sell a schedule IV controlled substance, a Class D felony; possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class D felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed partially consecutive sentences, for an effective sentence of five years. On appeal, appellant argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his possession of tramadol conviction and his firearm conviction; (2) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the photographs and text messages from appellant's cellular telephone; and (3) the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to testify regarding appellant's oral statement to police. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Chalmers G. Brown, appeals the trial court’s order granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence and entering corrected judgments, arguing that his convictions should have been vacated not merely corrected. After review, we reverse the trial court’s correction of the judgments against the defendant and reinstate the original judgments.

The defendant, Chuncy Lesolue Hollis, whose original first degree premeditated murder conviction was reversed by this court due to an error in jury instructions, was again convicted by a Gibson County jury in a second trial of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; that the trial court erred by issuing a jury instruction on flight and by not instructing the jury on cause of death, by allowing prior statements of witnesses to be introduced as substantive evidence, by allowing photographic lineups into evidence and by summarily dismissing his motion for judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial without holding a hearing; that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by the manner in which the prosecutor questioned witnesses and by the improper comments he made in opening statement and closing argument; and that the cumulative effect of various trial errors deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the election of offenses doctrine, articulated in Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1973), and reaffirmed in State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. 1993), requires the prosecution to identify a single incident of sexual battery in cases, such as this one, where the child victim testifies to repeated incidents of sexual contact occurring over a substantial period of time but does not furnish any specific details, dates, or distinguishing characteristics as to individual incidents of sexual battery. We hold, as have courts in other jurisdictions, that where a prosecution is based on such nonspecific or “generic” evidence, requiring the prosecution to elect a single specific incident is not possible. However, to prevent infringement upon the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict, the trial court must give a modified unanimity instruction which informs the jury that it must unanimously agree the defendant committed all the acts described by the victim in order to convict the defendant. Although the trial court did not have the benefit of this decision and therefore did not provide the modified unanimity instruction to the jury in this case, we conclude, based on the record in this appeal, that the omission of this instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment vacating the defendant’s convictions of sexual battery by an authority figure and reinstate the trial court’s judgment approving the jury’s verdict.

This appeal concerns post-divorce matters. Mimi Hiatt (“Wife”) and Kevin L. Hiatt (“Husband”) divorced. Wife some years later filed a motion to modify the final decree of divorce in the Circuit Court for Blount County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to increase Husband’s child support and alimony obligations. Husband, in turn, filed a motion to recover claimed overpayments he made on the marital residence because Wife had transferred it to a trust. The Trial Court found, among other things, that Wife was voluntarily underemployed and declined to increase her spousal support for that reason. The Trial Court also ruled that Wife’s divestment of the marital residence constituted a “sale” under the Marital Dissolution Agreement (“the MDA”) and awarded a judgment to Husband for payments he made on the mortgage after Wife’s transfer of the marital residence to the trust. Wife appeals to this Court. We hold that Wife’s transfer of the marital residence to a trust constituted a sale per the MDA, and we affirm the Trial Court in its award to Husband for overpayment. However, we find that Wife proved a substantial and material change in circumstances, and we remand for the Trial Court to determine an increase in Wife’s alimony in light of this change and all relevant factors. We find further that the Trial Court erred in declining to award Wife her attorney’s fees relative to alimony. As a final matter, we award Wife her attorney’s fees incurred on appeal related to the alimony issue, and remand for the Trial Court to determine Wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees related to the alimony issue on appeal. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, in part, and, reversed, in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.  I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for public intoxication as indicted, but I would uphold his conviction for simple possession of marijuana.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Nolan Excell Pippen, was convicted of public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor; and simple possession of marijuana, third or subsequent offense, a Class E felony.  See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-310, -418.  The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of two years’ incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for public intoxication; and (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the marijuana found in his pocket during a search incident to his arrest for public intoxication. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction for public intoxication and that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s suppression motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and dismiss the charges against the Defendant.

The Defendant, Clifford Eric Marsh, pleaded guilty to fourth offense driving on a revoked license, a Class A misdemeanor.  See T.C.A. § 55-50-504 (2012).  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days’ confinement at 75% service.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing.

I respectfully dissent from the majority view that the evidence supports a verdict of first degree premeditated murder.

A Rutherford County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Kenny Thomason, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction, claiming that the State failed to prove premeditation or that he possessed the weapon that killed the victim; instead, he asserts that the victim possessed the weapon and that she was killed during a struggle.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, John Burley Alberts, was convicted of four counts of rape of a child, see Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-522, and received an effective sentence of one hundred years to be served at one hundred percent.  On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of the Defendant’s car, and (2) that evidence obtained from a laptop computer recovered from his car should have been suppressed because officers did not acquire a search warrant prior to performing a forensic analysis of the computer.  Because we conclude that the search was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and that the Defendant has waived review of the second issue, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This action was originally filed in general sessions court against three defendants and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. Two of the co-defendants appealed to circuit court. The remaining co-defendant successfully sought to have the general sessions judgment set aside for insufficient service of process. Thereafter, the general sessions court transferred the claim against the one remaining co-defendant to circuit court to be consolidated with the pending appeal filed by the other co-defendants. The plaintiff subsequently voluntarily dismissed the action. One co-defendant filed a motion to alter or amend, asserting that the circuit court should not have allowed the plaintiff to voluntarily nonsuit the action. The circuit court denied the motion, and the co-defendant timely appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., Dissenting.
In light of the facts that are presented by the pleadings in this case, I must respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the trial court's dismissal of this property dispute. The majority opinion places much emphasis on the fact that the local church has not “withdrawn” from COGIC, and by citing to Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Middle City Church of God in Christ, 774 S.W.2d 950 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), it suggests that judicial intervention would be improper at this time. Although the Appellees, an apparently vocal group within the local church, still claim that they want to remain a part of COGIC, they refuse to abide by the decisions of the hierarchal church's Ecclesiastical Council, thereby creating, if not an actual withdrawal from the hierarchal church, a schism between the members of the local church. The ecclesiastical decisions having, therefore, been made by the hierarchal church, I am of the opinion that the alleged facts of this case do not prevent judicial intervention to decide the property issues that have arisen between the hierarchal church and members of the local church. From my perspective, they necessitate it. Because resolution of the dispute among the parties is not dependent on the trial court's ruling on matters of conscience or religious doctrine or polity, the trial court should not be precluded from exercising jurisdiction over the case.