APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Zantuan A. Horton, appeals the revocation of his probationary sentence, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

Money judgment was entered in suit to recover personal property which had been instituted in general sessions court. Defendant sought relief pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 more than ten days after judgment was entered and general sessions court denied relief. On appeal, the circuit court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because motion for relief was not timely, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.   

This action involves a commercial loan in the amount of $765,000.00. Prior to closing on the loan, the lender received a commitment for title insurance requiring that a prior lien on title to the real property as collateral be released or subordinated. The lender went forward with the closing after receiving assurance from the title insurance company's agent and attorney that the prior lien had been subordinated. Thereafter, the title insurance company issued a policy that excepted the prior lien from coverage. Following default by the borrowers, the prior lienholder foreclosed on the property, causing the lender to file the present action against the title insurance company and the attorney who prepared the commitment for title insurance, as well as the attorney's law firm. The title insurance company and the attorney, together with his law firm, filed separate motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion filed by the attorney and his firm. The lender subsequently took a voluntary nonsuit of its claims against those parties. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the title insurance company. The attorney, his firm, and the lender have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the title insurance company. We dismiss the joint appeal filed by the attorney and his law firm as not justiciable.

A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility determined that a Memphis attorney should be suspended from the practice of law for 180 days based on his violation of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d). The trial court affirmed the decision of the Hearing Panel. After careful consideration, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Roy Len Rogers, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, and reckless endangerment. State v. Roy Len Rogers, No. E2011-02529-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5371987, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2014). The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the first degree murder conviction and sentenced petitioner to a mandatory life sentence for the murder conviction and to a concurrent term of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the reckless endangerment conviction. Id. This court upheld petitioner's conviction on direct appeal. Id. The pro se petitioner filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged numerous infractions of the trial court, trial counsel, and the State. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, stating that the issues had been addressed in petitioner's direct appeal. On appeal, petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without appointing counsel. Following our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellant, Dominique Ramell Jarrett, entered a guilty plea to carjacking, a Class B felony, and received the agreed-upon sentence of eight years with the trial court to determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and ordered appellant to serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. It is from this judgment that he now appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Bradley Dale Felton, pleaded guilty to attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and received an eight-year sentence, suspended to probation after serving one year in custody.  A probation violation warrant was filed, and the trial court sustained the violation and ordered appellant to serve fifteen weekends in jail and extended his probation by one year.  Appellant was subsequently arrested on a capias warrant for failing to serve his weekends in a consecutive manner, and following a revocation hearing, the trial court ordered his sentence into execution.  Appellant now appeals the judgment of the trial court, arguing that he was never ordered to serve his weekends consecutively.  The State concedes that appellant is correct and that the trial court should be reversed.  Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Donald W. Higgins III, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated child neglect, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the victim’s injuries, that the trial court erred by refusing to play at trial a portion of his recorded pretrial interview with the police, that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that a violation of the duty to report was a lesser included offense of aggravated child neglect, and by imposing a Range II sentence.  Because the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of aggravated child neglect, that conviction is reversed, and the charge is dismissed.

Aggrieved of his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, carjacking, reckless endangerment, and three counts of aggravated assault, the defendant appeals.  He claims that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based upon a violation of his right to a speedy trial; (2) the trial court denied his right to due process of law by failing to rule on his pretrial motions; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault; (4) his conviction of reckless endangerment is void because that offense was not a lesser included offense of the charged offense of aggravated assault; (5) the dual convictions of aggravated robbery and carjacking violate principles of double jeopardy; (6) he was denied the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him; (7) the trial court’s failure to enforce its subpoenas denied him the right to compulsory process; (8) the trial court should have either excluded certain evidence or granted the defendant’s motion for a continuance; (9) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress certain evidence; (10) the trial court erred by failing to exclude an out-of-court identification of the defendant; (11) the trial court erred by failing to order the production of certain evidence; and (12) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences.  Because felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, the defendant’s conviction of that offense is reversed, and that count is remanded for a new trial on the remaining lesser included offense of assault.  We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

Mother challenges the modification of the parenting plan, specifically the designation of Father as the primary residential parent and the new parenting schedule. Mother contends that the trial court’s best interest determination was flawed because the trial court failed to consider the expert testimony of a psychologist who examined the child in Tennessee. She also contends the court erred by failing to require the guardian ad litem to investigate the records of a psychologist who examined the child in Georgia. Because Mother failed to provide a transcript of the evidence or a statement of the evidence, we must assume there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual determinations. We find no error with the investigation by the guardian ad litem because he was not required to investigate the records of every medical professional that examined the child; instead, by rule, the guardian ad litem is to “conduct an investigation to the extent that the guardian ad litem considers necessary to determine the best interests of the child. . . .” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 40A, § 8(b)(1). Further, Mother failed to proffer a summary of the Georgia psychologist’s records or testimony; therefore, there is no factual basis for us to conclude that testimony of the Georgia psychologist would have affected the court’s decision. As for the Tennessee psychologist, the record reveals that the trial court did consider the expert’s testimony. As a result, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We also declare this a frivolous appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. 

Defendant, Daniel H. Jones, is currently serving an effective sentence of thirty-one years for a multitude of convictions. In October 2014, Defendant filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, alleging that his aggregate sentence is illegal because it exceeds the maximum sentence for a Range I offender convicted of a Class B felony. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, finding that Defendant had failed to state a colorable claim. Upon our thorough review of the record, we determine that Defendant has not presented a colorable claim for relief. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court in full.

The Defendant, John Wesley Couch, was found guilty by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class D felony.  See T.C.A. § 39-17-433 (2014).  The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years’ confinement, to be served consecutively to a Coffee County sentence and any other existing sentences.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) his sentence is excessive and contrary to law.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A truck driver alleged that he sustained a heart attack in the course and scope of his employment. His employer denied the claim, asserting that the heart attack was not caused by his employment. The trial court ruled that the claim was compensable and awarded the truck driver workers' compensation benefits. The employer has appealed. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, the appeal was referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

In this appeal from attorney disciplinary proceedings, the hearing panel of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility suspended the law license of the appellant attorney for one year. The hearing panel determined that the attorney violated Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 4.4, and 8.4 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. Its decision was based on, inter alia, the attorney’s failure to communicate with the client, excessive fees, withholding items from the client’s files after termination of her representation, and sending the clients’ new attorney emails threatening criminal prosecution of the former clients. The attorney sought judicial review of the hearing panel’s decision, and the trial court affirmed the decision of the hearing panel. The attorney now appeals to this Court. After a careful review of the record, we affirm. 

In this termination of parental rights case, Mother appeals the trial court's findings of incompetency and persistence of conditions as grounds for termination. Mother also appeals the trial court's conclusion that termination was in the children's best interest. We affirm the trial court's findings as to both grounds for termination. We also affirm the trial court's finding that termination is in the best interest of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother's parental rights.

The petitioner, Robert Guerrero, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2008 Maury County Circuit Court jury convictions of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated assault, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred by excluding witness testimony and by exhibiting bias. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Robert and Kimberly McCollum (Plaintiffs) sued Darrell Peters (Defendant) for damages incurred after a garage he built partially collapsed. Their complaint alleged multiple claims for relief including breach of contract, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA), various forms of fraud and/or intentional misrepresentation and negligence. Following a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. The court held that, with respect to his construction of the garage, Defendant was guilty of promissory fraud, made fraudulent misrepresentations in violation of the TCPA, and acted recklessly by consciously acting contrary to his representations. The trial court entered judgment awarding Plaintiffs a sum total of $56,103.50 including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

This case involves a dispute regarding the custody of Serenity W.M. (the Child), the minor daughter of Matthew Ryan Martin (Father) and Natasha Amber Nichole Martin (Mother). Shortly after the Child’s birth, a state district court in the Commonwealth of Kentucky entered an order granting temporary custody of the Child to her maternal uncle, Christopher Mayo, and his wife, Natasha Cima (collectively Petitioners). Later, Petitioners filed a petition in the Tennessee trial court seeking (1) enforcement of the Kentucky order and (2) emergency custody of the Child. Following a hearing in Tennessee, the trial court granted the petition and ordered that custody would remain with Petitioners pending further proceedings in Kentucky. Father and Mother appeal. We affirm.

Defendant, James Thomas, Jr., was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated rape and domestic assault. A jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of 16 years and 6 months. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated rape because Defendant was not “armed with” a weapon; 2) the trial court erred by overruling defense counsel’s objection to a detective’s testimony regarding the victim’s credibility; and 3) the prosecutor improperly commented on the victim’s credibility. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the entire record in this case, we conclude that although the evidence is legally sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions, the trial court should not have allowed the detective to testify regarding the victim’s credibility, and the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument constitute plain error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial.

The trial court dismissed Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus. Due to profound deficiencies in Appellant's brief, we dismiss this appeal.

This appeal stems from a public records dispute, pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 10-7-101 et seq., litigated in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The trial court awarded Appellee/Cross-Appellant $3,500.00 in attorneys‘ fees and costs due to the City of Memphis‘ ("the City") failure to timely respond to Appellee/Cross-Appellant‘s open records request. The City appealed concerning the propriety of the award of attorneys‘ fees. Appellee/Cross-Appellant cross-appealed concerning the amount of the fees awarded and additionally prayed for an award of attorneys‘ fees on appeal. Although we conclude that Appellee/Cross-Appellant is entitled to attorneys‘ fees, we modify the amount awarded from $3,500.00 to $2,340.00. Further, we deny Appellee/Cross-Appellant‘s request for attorneys‘ fees on appeal.

In this parental termination case, Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to the minor child at issue. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the dismissal of an action challenging the validity of and distribution of assets from a trust. The trial court held the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Because the plaintiffs in this action are in privity with previous challengers of the trust for purposes of res judicata, we affirm the dismissal.

This appeal involves a contract for employment entitling the employee to sixty days advance notice of the employer’s decision to terminate the contract and six months additional salary from the date of the termination. The employer argued that the termination was effective in May 2005 and, therefore, that the employee had been fully compensated pursuant to the contract. The trial court ruled that the termination occurred in June 2005 and awarded employee damages equivalent to two months’ salary. We conclude that the evidence preponderates in favor of finding that the employee did not receive the requisite notice of the termination of her employment until September or October 2005 at the earliest. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and award employee damages equivalent to six months’ salary, as well as partial prejudgment interest. Reversed and remanded.

The final order from which the pro se appellant seeks to appeal was entered on April 20, 2015. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until May 22, 2015, more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The appellees have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss.