APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this termination of parental rights case, the father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to his two daughters on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support the children in the four consecutive months preceding his incarceration and conduct prior to his incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children. The father also asserts the court erred in finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. We fail to find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the father abandoned the children by failing to visit or support them in the four months preceding his incarceration; however, we affirm the trial court’s finding that father engaged in conduct prior to his incarceration that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children. Likewise, we affirm the court’s best interest determination. The trial court’s finding that father’s parental rights should be terminated is affirmed.

Residents of the Sylvan Park neighborhood of Nashville filed a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking review of a decision by the Metropolitan Planning Commission to recommend that the Metropolitan Council disapprove an ordinance which would expand the historic conservation overlay district in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that the Planning Commission’s decision “was only a recommendation and not a ‘final order’ from which an appeal may be taken with a writ of certiorari.” The court granted the motion, holding that the decision by the Planning Commission was not a final order, and thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Residents appeal. Because the Metropolitan Council must take further action on the Planning Commission’s recommendation before the zoning ordinance is enacted, the decision of the Planning Commission is not a final order or judgment for purposes of judicial review; accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.      

Mother and Father are the parents of two minor children. Mother and Father each filed a complaint for divorce and sought to be named the primary residential parent. The trial court designated Father the primary residential parent and created a permanent parenting plan that was materially different from the plan proposed by either party. The court also entered a child support order. Mother appealed the trial court’s judgment, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) designating Father the primary residential parent; (2) setting up the residential schedule and parenting plan based entirely on Father’s work schedule, with the result that Mother has the children only one day at a time; and (3) imputing a higher income to her for child support purposes than is warranted by the evidence. We affirm the trial court’s designation of Father as the primary residential parent, but we vacate the trial court’s residential plan and child support order and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Defendant, Perry L. McCrobey, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The State concedes that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing Defendant’s motion. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the motion and remand for appointment of counsel if Defendant is indigent and for other proceedings pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.

The plaintiffs filed this action to recover damages they incurred when, during construction, their home was completely destroyed by fire. The plaintiffs sued the project's general contractor as well as various subcontractors employed by the general contractor. The complaint included allegations of negligence, based in part on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The plaintiffs have appealed. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the general contractor regarding claims based upon the general contractor's own negligence and res ipsa loquitur, but we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment regarding the negligence of the flooring subcontractors. We also reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor regarding the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. Finally, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The trial court granted judicial diversion for the Defendant, Ashley Marie Pretzer, on several drug-related charges in an eighteen-count indictment. The Defendant agreed to be on supervised probation for a period of eight years. Two years later, the Defendant’s probation officer filed an affidavit with the trial court alleging that the Defendant had violated the terms of her probation by failing a drug screen. The trial court issued a probation violation warrant, and, thereafter, the police arrested the Defendant for driving under the influence, failing to prove financial responsibility, and possessing drug paraphernalia. The Defendant’s probation officer amended his affidavit to include these new charges. The trial court held a hearing on the Defendant’s alleged probation violations during which she admitted to the violations. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s judicial diversion and sentenced her to serve a sentence of eight years in confinement. On appeal, she contends that the trial court improperly required her to serve the balance of her sentence rather than reinstate her sentence of probation. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Robert Winters, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2013, Libertad Claborn (Wife) obtained a “default judgment for dissolution of marriage” from a trial court in Illinois. Wife had resided in Illinois since 2011. The Illinois court ordered the sale of the marital residence in Chattanooga and directed Bobby L. Claborn (Husband) to “cooperate fully” in the sale. The Illinois judgment also ordered Husband to pay child support and educational expenses for the parties’ children. Wife properly enrolled the judgment in Tennessee and sought its enforcement. The trial court in Tennessee accorded full faith and credit to the Illinois judgment. Husband appeals, arguing that (1) the Illinois court did not have jurisdiction to order the sale of the marital residence; (2) the foreign judgment contains provisions at odds with Tennessee public policy; (3) the trial court improperly declined to transfer the matter to chancery court; and (4) the trial court entered a “default” judgment without allowing him to present defenses. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Lionel R. Lindsey, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Owner of real property conveyed, by quitclaim deed, an interest to herself and her son as joint tenants, with the right of survivorship. Owner then conveyed her interest to her grandson by quitclaim deed a year later. In the deed to her grandson, Owner expressly referenced the earlier deed to her son, the grandson’s father. After Owner died, the son filed a declaratory judgment in which he asked the court to rule that he owns the property in fee simple. The son filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The grandson appealed the trial court’s judgment. We affirm. Owner transferred her right of survivorship to her grandson; but this right would come into play only if her son predeceased her. Because Owner died first, the son exercised his right of survivorship and became the sole owner in fee of the property.
 

The Petitioner, Kenneth A. Adams, appeals as of right from the Tipton County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition on the grounds that it was untimely filed. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, John Frank Mullins, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1000 and was sentenced to eight years on Community Corrections. After a hearing, the trial court found that Defendant violated the terms of his Community Corrections sentence, revoked the Community Corrections sentence, and ordered Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in incarceration. On appeal, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Marquette Houston, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2005 conviction for second degree murder and his twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying him relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This interlocutory appeal arises from a health care liability action and concerns the question of proper venue. Plaintiff filed her original lawsuit in Shelby County against the Appellants, a pathology group located in Shelby County. Appellants answered the complaint and raised, as an affirmative defense, the comparative negligence of Appellees, plaintiff's primary care physician and his employer, who are residents of Sumner County. Plaintiff then moved, under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-1-119, for leave to amend her complaint to add the Sumner County residents to the lawsuit. Leave was granted, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01. Appellees answered the complaint and averred that venue was improper in Shelby County under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-4-101(b). Appellees asked for dismissal of the lawsuit; however, rather than dismissing the lawsuit, the Shelby County court transferred the case to Sumner County. Appellants appeal. We affirm and remand.

The petitioner, Raymond Lee Swett, Jr., appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for relief, arguing he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Dennis Allen Rayfield, was convicted of first degree murder by a Wayne County Circuit Court jury. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2014). He was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to call a witness for the sole purpose of impeaching him, (3) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the alternate jurors at the close of the proof, and (4) the trial court erred in permitting the sequestered jurors to have their cell phones in their possession during the trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves the 2009 termination of a city police officer's employment on grounds of unfitness for duty due to post-traumatic stress disorder suffered as a result of the officer's active military service while on leave from his employment. Following an administrative hearing in November 2009, the city council originally upheld the police chief''s termination of the officer's employment. The officer commenced this action in state court by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the trial court. Upon hearing, the trial court found, inter alia, that the city council had incorrectly applied a statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 38-8-106, which had been overruled by an agreed consent order previously entered into between the United States and the State of Tennessee. See United States v. Tennessee, Civil Action No. 1:98-1357. The trial court therefore reversed the city council's decision and ordered the officer's reinstatement with back pay. The city appealed to this Court. In a 2012 decision, this Court affirmed the trial court's finding regarding the incorrect application of Tennessee Code Annotated § 38-8-106 and remanded the case, directing the trial court to instruct the city council regarding the appropriate legal standard. See Hoback v. City of Chattanooga, No. E2011-00484-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 2974762 at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2012). Following remand, the city council conducted a second hearing and again voted to uphold the prior termination of the officer's employment.

The Petitioner, Laquint Deco Holder, pleaded guilty to sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone, and the trial court entered the agreed sentence of six years to be served at 100%. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After review, we conclude that the post-conviction court did not err when it dismissed the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. We therefore affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County judge convicted the Defendant, Steven Darrell Little, of one count of indecent exposure and sentenced him to six months of probation and ordered a $500 fine. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review, we conclude that there is no error, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant, Ryan Scott Haraway, pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated burglary, one count of forgery, one count of theft of property, two counts of burglary of a motor vehicle, and three counts of assault. The total effective sentence was seven years with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

An employee sustained various injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Her employer denied the claim for workers‘ compensation benefits, contending that because the employee was driving to her home from work, the injury was not compensable. The trial court awarded benefits, including permanent total disability, based upon its finding that at the time of the accident the employee was returning to her office after an employment-related client visit. The employer has appealed, raising several issues which primarily relate to whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court‘s findings. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers‘ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Micah Cates, was convicted by a Carter County jury of vehicular homicide by intoxication. Prior to trial, the Defendant moved the trial court to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless blood draw. The trial court denied the motion and the case proceeded to trial where the State introduced evidence of the Defendant's blood alcohol content. Following the Defendant's conviction, the trial court imposed the minimum sentence of eight years with a release eligibility of 30 percent. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered that the Defendant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his warrantless blood draw, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the Defendant. Upon our review, we conclude that no exception to the warrant requirement justified the warrantless blood draw in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the blood draw and vacate his conviction.

The employee fell from a roof in the course of his employment and sustained fractures of his left leg. The injury required three surgical procedures, including a fusion of his injured ankle, which resulted in the shortening of one leg. He asserted that his altered gait from the leg injury has caused disability to his lower back and that the permanency of his injuries has resulted in severe clinical depression. When the employee and the employer were unable to resolve the issue of workers' compensation benefits, the employee filed suit. At the conclusion of the proof, the trial court found that the leg injury extended to the body as a whole and, further, that the employee, who had been unable to return to work, was entitled to an award of benefits in excess of six times the anatomical impairment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242 (2008 & Supp. 2013). The employer appealed, contending that the trial court erred by assigning disability to the body as a whole and by awarding a 90% vocational disability, which is in excess of six times the anatomical disability of 12%. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.