APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Antonio Lamont Scales, was convicted in Davidson County Criminal Court for the offenses of attempted second degree murder of one victim and reckless aggravated assault of another victim.  His co-defendant at trial was convicted of the same offenses.  On appeal, Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions, the trial court’s failure to provide the “missing witness” instruction to the jury, and the sentences imposed by the trial court.  The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing.  See State v. Timothy Washington Lyons and Antonio Lamont Scales, No. M2009-02524-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 300141, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 18, 2011).  After resentencing, no further appeal was instituted by Petitioner.  His effective sentence after remand was twenty years, down from twenty-two years originally imposed by the trial court.  Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was dismissed after an evidentiary hearing.  This appeal followed.  After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury found the Petitioner, James Arthur Johnson, guilty of two counts of first degree felony murder and one count of aggravated robbery.  The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to a total effective sentence of life plus eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentence.  State v. James Arthur Johnson, No. M2009-01147-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3323796, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 24, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. August 24, 2010).  The Petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief based upon his allegation that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.  The post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing.  On appeal, after a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The petitioner, Frederick Greene, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Gilberto Canales, Jr., was indicted for one count of aggravated rape. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of rape. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence, and that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by making misleading statements and arguing improperly admitted evidence during closing argument. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Rodney Patterson, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because (1) trial counsel failed to inform him that his conviction for vandalism of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000 was a felony rather than a misdemeanor; and (2) trial counsel failed to inform him that his sentence was to be served consecutively to his sentence for another offense.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Kendra Mahan, appeals as of right from the White County Criminal Court’s revocation of her six-year probationary sentence and order of total  incarceration relative to her guilty-pleaded convictions for attempted introduction of contraband into a penal institution, aggravated burglary, and theft of property valued over $500.00 but less than $1,000.00.  The Defendant contends that she was not afforded due process because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact.  The Defendant also submits that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that a violation of the conditions of her probation—either failure to pay court costs and restitution or a failed drug test—occurred.  Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s probationary sentence, but we remand for entry of an amended revocation order reflecting credit for time served and for correction of the “original sentence length.”

Petitioner, James Anthony Burgess, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis.  Because Petitioner has not identified any newly discovered evidence, we affirm the decision of the coram nobis court.

Father filed a petition to reduce child support. Mother sought to have their almost eighteen-year-old daughter testify that she did not intend to exercise visitation with Father to the extent previously ordered by the court after she turned eighteen. The court refused to let her testify. The trial court used the number of days of parenting time previously ordered in calculating child support instead of zero. The trial court also ordered Mother to pay a portion of Father’s attorney’s fees. Mother appeals these issues. We affirm the trial court as to the testimony of the child and the calculation of child support. We reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees.

The petitioner, Antonio Byrd, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reopen his 1999 petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements for appealing the denial of a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner, Jonathan Davis, appeals the summary dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition challenged his Maury County Circuit Court jury conviction of attempted aggravated robbery. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, David Jerome Powell, entered an open guilty plea to theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, and driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, third offense, with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103, 55-50-504. Prior to the sentencing hearing, Powell filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he had a constitutional right to a jury trial. The trial court denied the motion, finding no “just and fair reason to allow him to withdraw the plea.” At the sentencing hearing a few days later, the trial court merged the conviction for driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license with the conviction for driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, third offense. The court then sentenced Powell to consecutive sentences of six years with a release eligibility of sixty percent for the conviction for theft and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the conviction for driving on a revoked license, third offense, and ordered these sentences served consecutively to sentences Powell had received for three other convictions in other courts. Thereafter, Powell appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a negligence action. While attending a holiday-themed ice exhibit, the plaintiff slipped and fell at the top of an ice slide attraction that was a feature of the exhibit and sustained injuries to his arm. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the company that constructed the ice slide asserting various theories of negligence. After the company filed a motion for summary judgment in which it demonstrated that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence to support his claims, the plaintiff conceded that the company was entitled to summary judgment on all of his claims except those related to negligent design of the ice slide. In support of his assertion that the company breached a standard of care in designing the ice slide, the plaintiff relied solely on American Society of Testing Materials safety standards for children’s playground equipment. The trial court determined that because the standards were not applicable to the ice slide, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the company was negligent in designing the ice slide. The trial court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

This appeal concerns a father's parental rights to his daughter. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of the father's parental rights on the statutory ground of abandonment when he willfully failed to visit the child for the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition. The court also found termination of the father's rights was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We affirm as modified.

The defendant, Andrew Brian Santora, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the revocation and that the trial court should have imposed an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Brandon S. Massengill, appeals the Claiborne County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for resisting arrest or stop and his six-month suspended sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his petition on the ground that he was not in custody for purposes of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition.

Plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution action against defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, from the denial of a motion to recuse filed by Steve Allen Westberry ("Former Husband") in the parties' post-dissolution modification proceedings. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Former Husband, and finding no error in Trial Court's ruling, we affirm.

Aggrieved of his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of aggravated assault, the defendant, Brandon D. Forbes, appeals, challenging the admission of his prior conviction of aggravated robbery for impeachment purposes, the admission of certain testimony from a State’s witness, and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father/Appellant appeals the termination of his parental rights on grounds of severe child abuse pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(4) and persistence of conditions pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3). The child was found to be dependent and neglected by order of the Juvenile Court, and Appellant appealed the dependency and neglect finding to the Circuit Court. The ground of persistence of conditions requires a prior finding of dependency and neglect. However, our record does not reflect the status of Appellant’s appeal of the dependency and neglect order. In the absence of proof of full adjudication of the dependency and neglect appeal, we hold that the trial court erred in applying the ground of persistence of conditions. Accordingly, we reverse the termination of Appellant’s parental rights on that ground. Concerning the termination of Appellant’s parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse, the trial court’s order states only that Appellant “has sexually abused the child . . . pursuant to T.C.A. § 37-1-602 and that this sexual abuse constitutes severe abuse pursuant to T.C.A. § 37-1-102(b)(2[1]).” Because the code sections that the trial court relies upon contain numerous definitions of “child sexual abuse” and “severe child abuse,” in the absence of specific citation to the exact definition(s) relied upon, we cannot make a meaningful review of the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse and remand with instructions for the trial court to make specific findings as required under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(k). 

An employee, who was injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist while on company business and while driving an automobile owned by his wife, sought to recover for his injuries through the uninsured motorist provision of his employer's business automobile policy. The insurer denied coverage, asserting that the policy only provided coverage for automobiles owned by the company. The trial court granted the employee's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that an endorsement to the policy which added employees using non-company vehicles on company business to the liability coverage operated to make those employees “insured” for purposes of the uninsured motorist coverage. Insurer appeals; finding no error in the trial court's interpretation of the policy, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant, Austin Wells, appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and reckless driving, arguing that his warrantless arrest for the offenses was not supported by probable cause and that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We conclude that Defendant has waived both of these issues and that he is not entitled to plain error relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This case involves a quo warranto action challenging the validity and reasonableness of an annexation ordinance. The trial court determined that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 6-58-111, the plaintiff failed to prove that (1) the annexation ordinance was unreasonable for the overall well-being of the communities involved or (2) the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and property owners of the municipality and territory would not be materially retarded in the absence of such annexation. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff timely appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Pursuant to an issue raised by the defendant, we also determine the plaintiff’s complaint to have been timely and properly filed.

This case involves a challenge by a candidate for circuit judge to the qualifications of the winning candidate. William Thomas McFarland and Michael S. Pemberton were the only candidates in the August 7, 2014 election for Ninth Judicial District Circuit Judge.2 In March 2014, an eligible voter in the Ninth District, who is not a party to this suit, filed a complaint with the local election commission challenging Pemberton's eligibility to run for circuit judge, alleging he did not meet the residency requirement. The local election commission held a public hearing, and ultimately determined that Pemberton was eligible. Accordingly, his name was reflected on the ballot. He won the election. McFarland, who had knowledge of the March 2014 complaint and subsequent actions by the local election commission, then filed this election challenge, seeking to void the election results on the ground that Pemberton failed to satisfy the residency requirement. The trial court dismissed McFarland's claim as an untimely review of a quasi-judicial determination under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-102 (Supp. 2015). McFarland appeals. We affirm.

We granted an application for an interlocutory appeal in this case to consider whether the Board of Administration of the City of Memphis Retirement System is exempt from the contested case procedures of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act because the City of Memphis is organized as a home rule charter form of government. We hold that the Board is not exempt from the contested case procedures and therefore affirm the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to the petitioner. This matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.

This appeal involves the termination of a father's parental rights to his seven-year-old son. In 2011, the son was adjudicated dependent and neglected due to his parents' substance abuse and was placed in the custody of his paternal great-aunt and great-uncle. In 2013, the same great-aunt and great-uncle filed a petition, as prospective adoptive parents, seeking to terminate the father's parental rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment and persistent conditions. The trial court found that the grounds of abandonment and persistent conditions were proved by clear and convincing evidence. The father appeals. We affirm.