APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The employee sustained a compensable injury to her right knee. While recovering from surgery, she reinjured the knee. Her employer asserted the reinjury was an intervening event which absolved the employer of further liability for medical care or temporary disability benefits. The trial court found the reinjury was not an intervening event, ordered medical benefits, and awarded additional temporary disability benefits. The employer has appealed, asserting the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, 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. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.  

The Petitioner, Kevin LaMont Buford, Sr., appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 convictions for facilitation to commit felony murder and attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery and his effective sixty-year sentence.  The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred by denying him relief.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Joshua Dunn (“the Petitioner”) appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Allyanna C., the minor child (“the Child”) of Allen C. (“Father”) and Annaliza H. (“Mother”). The Child was taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (“DCS”) on July 27, 2011, upon its investigation of environmental dangers in Mother's home and subsequent determination that placement with Father was unsuitable. On April 16, 2014, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of both parents upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the parents abandoned the Child by failing to provide a suitable home, (2) the parents failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities and requirements of the permanency plans, and (3) the conditions leading to the Child's removal from the home persisted. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights was in the Child's best interest. Father and Mother have each appealed. Because the statutory ground of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home was not pled by DCS in the petition or defended on appeal, we reverse the trial court's finding on that ground as to both parents. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights to the Child.

Appellant, Deborah Wen Yee Mark, was convicted of one count of first degree murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, four counts of aggravated child abuse, and four counts of child abuse.  The trial court sentenced appellant to life for the murder conviction, twenty years at 100% release eligibility for each of the aggravated child abuse convictions, and three years as a Range I, standard offender for each of the child abuse convictions.  The trial court aligned each of the aggravated child abuse sentences consecutively to each other and consecutively to the life sentence.  The child abuse sentences were aligned consecutively to the life sentence but concurrently with each other and with the aggravated child abuse sentences for an effective sentence of life plus eighty years.  Following her unsuccessful motion for a new trial, appellant raises the following issues on appeal:  (1) whether appellant was in custody during her questioning, triggering Miranda requirements; (2) whether her statement was coerced and involuntary; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s adoption video; (4) whether the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s aggravated child abuse conviction in Count III of the indictment vis-à-vis the finding of “serious bodily injury” based on the loss of four primary teeth; and (5) whether the trial court erred in aligning appellant’s aggravated child abuse sentences consecutively.  Following our extensive review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but clerical errors in the judgment forms require remand for correction as detailed fully below.

This appeal arises from the trial court's grant of two motions to dismiss in favor of Appellees. With regard to the State of Tennessee, the trial court found that the State and its employees were immune from liability under the doctrines of sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and prosecutorial immunity. With regard to Madison County, the trial court held that Appellant's complaint was time barred. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Appellant, Austin F. Busha, filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion contesting the legality of his sentence in case number 13492. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to correct appellant's expired sentence. Appellant submits that the trial court's ruling was error, and the State concedes. Because the award of pretrial jail credits lies strictly within the jurisdiction of the trial court, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. In this appeal, the majority upholds the sufficiency of the aggravated assault conviction reasoning that the jury was entitled to discredit the Defendant’s version of the events. A jury is indeed entitled to believe or disbelieve whatever testimony they so choose. However, the only evidence establishing the offense was provided by the Defendant’s statement, in which she claims self-defense. While the jury was free to reject this version of events, the State was not relieved of its duty to supply affirmative proof that the Defendant was the first aggressor. In my view, because the State failed to carry its burden in this regard, I would have reversed the judgment and dismissed the conviction.

Appellant, Connie Lavell Tate, was indicted on three alternative counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. The State dismissed one count prior to trial, and she was convicted of the remaining two counts. After merger, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years as a Range I, standard offender. It suspended the sentence to probation and placed appellant on supervised probation. In this appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Travarious Dejaun White, on one count of carjacking, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of felony evading arrest. The incident leading to the Defendant’s arrest occurred on August 26, 2007. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of all charged offenses. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eight years for carjacking, eight years each for both counts of aggravated robbery, and one year for felony evading arrest. The court ordered all sentences to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for carjacking and aggravated robbery. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, David Lewis, entered pleas of guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of a handgun while intoxicated. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of four years at 30% for the first count of aggravated assault, three years and six months at 30% for the second count, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for possession of a handgun while intoxicated. The trial court denied his request for judicial diversion or a suspension of his sentences, and his sole issue on appeal is that the court erred in these determinations. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 3 to reflect the defendant's conviction offense as possession of a handgun while intoxicated.

The Appellant, David Wayne Hearing, is appealing the trial court’s summary dismissal of his Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence in which the Appellant claimed he bargained for a life sentence with possibility of parole but was sentenced to life. The trial court found that the same issue was raised in the Appellant’s prior Rule 36.1 motion. The prior motion that was dismissed by the trial court and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by this court. The trial court’s order summarily dismissing the Rule 36.1 motion is affirmed under Rule 20.

Petitioner, Mario D. Jones, was convicted of possession with intent to sell more than fifty (50) grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to twenty years in confinement. Petitioner filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and was denied his due process rights. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel: (1) failed to call unspecified witnesses to challenge the weight of the tablets that he possessed and (2) failed to call the officer who was responsible for the storage of evidence. Petitioner also argues that he was denied due process by a State sentencing offer that was contingent upon his payment of a $500,000 fine. Finally, petitioner alleges that the post-conviction court erred by excluding from the evidentiary hearing an incomplete transcript of a sentencing hearing in an unrelated case regarding an officer involved in petitioner‟s case. After our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

An employee injured his cervical spine in a fall while working for his employer. The trial
court found the employee failed to make a meaningful return to work and awarded the
employee permanent partial disability benefits. The employer appealed, arguing the
employee (1) failed to provide credible evidence of adequate and timely notice to the
employer of the injury, and (2) failed to meet his burden of proving medical causation of
his cervical spine condition. After our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.

This appeal arises from a dispute over the placement of the minor child Isaiah R. (“the Child”). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) removed the Child from his parents’ custody and placed the Child in a foster home. Certain of the Child’s paternal relatives (“Respondents,” collectively) intervened in an effort to obtain custody of the Child and take him to California. The Circuit Court for Cocke County (“the Trial Court”) adjudicated the Child dependent and neglected, dismissed DCS from the action, and awarded legal and physical custody of the Child to the Child’s paternal great uncle. DCS appealed to this Court. We hold that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“the Compact”) applies in this case, that no exemptions to the Compact apply, and that the Trial Court erred in transferring custody of the Child to his great uncle in California without California’s approval. We further find that transferring the Child to California is not a proper disposition for the Child given certain troubling facts in the record. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Petitioner, Michael Scott Farner, appeals as of right from the Polk County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing his petition for having been untimely filed. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

At issue in this conservatorship action is the amount and type of support the spouse of a ward is entitled to receive from the ward's estate pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-109, which authorizes the court to “establish the amount of financial support to which the spouse . . . [is] entitled.” The ward's son and step-son from a previous marriage filed a petition for the appointment of a conservator; the ward's wife opposed the conservatorship. A conservatorship was created, and the court appointed third-party conservators for the ward's estate and person. Thereafter, the wife requested over $19,250 per month as spousal support, which included attorney's fees she incurred in the trial court proceedings. At the court's request, she filed statements of her expenses over a twelve-month period preceding the appointment of the conservator. The petitioners opposed her request contending it was excessive and that her separate assets should be considered in awarding support. After excluding “outlier” expenses that were significantly larger than her average monthly expenses and the attorney's fees the wife sought to recover as miscellaneous expenses, the trial court awarded spousal support of $9,010 per month. Petitioners and the wife appeal. Petitioners contend the award was excessive. The wife contends the court erroneously excluded bona fide expenses including, particularly, the attorney's fees she incurred in these proceedings. We affirm.

This appeal results from the trial court‘s entry of a default judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the Defendant has failed to state a colorable claim pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1. I also write separately to address the majority's discussion relative to whether a claim raised pursuant to Rule 36.1 is moot if a defendant has fully served the relevant sentence and to address my concerns that Rule 36.1 permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea to which a sentence has expired.

Defendant, Elashanti Dean, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery in 1998. He filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, alleging that his concurrent sentences were illegal because he was released on bond in one case at the time he committed the crimes in four other cases. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion. Upon our thorough review of the record, we determine that Defendant has not presented a colorable claim for relief because the judgments are silent as to whether his sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jarus Smith, appeals as of right from his jury convictions for facilitation of attempted second degree murder, possession of contraband in a penal institution, and two counts of aggravated assault.  One count of aggravated assault was merged into the facilitation conviction, and the trial court imposed consecutive terms of ten years for each of the remaining three convictions, resulting in a total effective sentence of thirty years’ incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether hearsay statements made by one of the victims were grounds for a mistrial and the curative instructions given were inadequate to address the harm; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Defendant’s motion for a continuance; (4) whether the superseding indictment, which added multiple counts of aggravated assault, should been dismissed as violative of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (5) whether the trial court erred by enhancing the length of his sentencing terms for his facilitation of attempted second degree murder and contraband possession convictions.  Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The defendant, Frederick DeWayne Gross, filed a motion to correct illegal sentences under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, alleging that his sentences were improperly ordered to be served concurrently.  The trial court reviewed the motion and dismissed it without holding a hearing, having determined that the defendant did not present a colorable claim because there was no statute mandating consecutive sentencing in his case.  The defendant appeals the trial court’s dismissal.  Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that a petitioner is not entitled to seek relief under Rule 36.1 when his sentence has been fully served. “On its face, Rule 36.1 does not limit the time within which a person seeking relief must file a motion, nor does it require the person seeking relief to be restrained of liberty.” State v. Donald Terrell, No. W2014-00340-CCA-R3-CO, 2014 WL 6883706, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Dec. 8, 2014).

The petitioner, Travis Ware, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because he received illegal concurrent sentences for crimes that he committed while released on bail. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court approved Petitioners'/Conservators' petition to establish a Supplemental Needs Trust for their Ward but declined to approve a proposed remainder provision naming two charities as beneficiaries. The trial court ruled that any amounts remaining in the Trust when it terminated would be distributed under the laws of intestate succession. The trial court also excluded evidence offered by Petitioners to demonstrate what they asserted was the Ward's intent. We affirm, as modified.