APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of Father’s petition to modify custody. Following a one-day trial, the court found that Father had failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstance as necessary for either a change in primary residential parent or parenting time. Because we find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding of no material change in circumstance for purposes of modification of residential parenting time, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Plaintiff fell down a set of steps while entering a building owned and operated by the State of Tennessee. She filed a claim with the Claims Commission alleging that the stairs were a dangerous condition because the handrail was too low and the steps were not covered with non-skid material. At trial, Plaintiff and her daughter testified about Plaintiff’s fall and the resulting injuries. Plaintiff also introduced into evidence photographs of repairs made to the stairs after her fall. The State called two witnesses, the head facilities administrator and a member of her staff, who testified that they were responsible for the maintenance of the steps. Both testified that they did not know of any prior incidents involving the steps. In his written order, the Commissioner found that both Plaintiff and the State’s witnesses were credible; however, he dismissed Plaintiff’s case because she failed to prove that a dangerous condition existed or that, if such condition existed, the State had notice of a dangerous condition. The Commissioner also concluded that Rule 407 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence prohibited him from considering Plaintiff’s photographs as evidence of the State’s liability. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

In 1986, the Petitioner, Earl David Crawford, was convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and armed robbery, and he received two life sentences plus thirty-five years. In 1987, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgments on direct appeal. State v. Earl David Crawford, CCA No. 258, 1987 WL 19611, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 10, 1987), perm. app. denied (Tenn. March 14, 1988). In 2014, the Petitioner filed a petition, his second, for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that his judgments of conviction were void because the trial court erred when it considered his "status as a parolee" to enhance his sentence. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the Petitioner's petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

I concur with the majority with respect to its resolution of all issues in this case except issue two, which challenged the trial court's admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that occurred in Milan, Tennessee. In my view, the admission of this evidence amounted to plain error. For the reasons that follow, I would have reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.

The defendant, Jonathan Mitchell Grimes, was indicted by the Gibson County Grand Jury in count 1 for rape of a child and in count 2 for aggravated sexual battery of a child under the age of thirteen. At trial, the State dismissed count 2. The jury subsequently convicted the defendant in count 1 of the lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery, and he was sentenced to ten years at one hundred percent release eligibility. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in allowing evidence of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 403 and Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the victim to testify after speaking with prosecutors during a break at trial; and (4) the State's bill of particulars did not provide adequate notice to him of the time frame for the charged offense, and there was a fatal variance between the bill of particulars and the evidence presented at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of conviction, vacate the judgment forms in counts 1 and 2, and remand the case for entry of correct judgment forms.

This appeal arises from a divorce. After 20 years of marriage, Michael Todd Culver (“Husband”) sued Lisa Culver (“Wife”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court divided the marital estate and granted the parties a divorce. Wife appeals to this Court. We hold, inter alia, that the Trial Court did not commit reversible error in its valuation or division of the marital estate, or in declining to find Husband in contempt. We hold further that the Trial Court erred in adding $500 per month in alleged rental income to Wife’s income for child support purposes. We, therefore, reverse that portion of the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for a new calculation of child support. We affirm, in part, and, reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

The petitioners filed this action seeking to remove the respondent from the position of county law director of Anderson County pursuant to Tennessee's ouster law, found at Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-47-101. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted after concluding that the position of county law director is not a public office subject to the ouster law. On appeal, the petitioners argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the position of county law director is not a public office. Because the county law director is subject to oversight by an advisory committee that may remove him or her at any time with the subsequent approval of the county legislature, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

I respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. Certainly, the better practice in all convicted felon in possession of a handgun cases is to have a pre-trial written stipulation agreeing that at the time of the offense the defendant had been previously convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. However, I write separately to emphasize that a formal stipulation to a defendant’s status as a convicted felon is not necessary to establish the predicate felony.

The defendant, Scott Lee, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree murder in the perpetration of attempted robbery; two counts of attempted second degree murder, Class B felonies; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class C felony; and felon in possession of a firearm, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to an effective term of life plus forty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to keep his prior convictions listed in Count 6 of the indictment from being heard and seen by the jury, and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Jerald Jefferson, was convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to confinement for twenty-five years. On appeal, he argues that this court should utilize a plain error review to consider his claims that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding eyewitness testimony and admission by silence, that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument, and that the aggregate effect of trial errors entitles him to a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a conservatorship proceeding in the Putnam County Probate Court.  The trial court appointed co-conservators over the Respondent’s property and person.  We vacate the trial court’s final order and remand for the entry of an order that complies with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01.

The defendant was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. After determining that the separate convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault did not violate double jeopardy, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling twenty-six years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. A divided panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding no double jeopardy violation. This Court granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether due process safeguards prohibit the retroactive application of the double jeopardy standard adopted in State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012), which was decided after the date of his offenses. The defendant argues that the former double jeopardy standard set out in State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996), should apply. Because our ruling in Watkins cannot be classified as “unexpected” or “indefensible” by reference to prior law, due process does not preclude its retroactive application. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

The Defendant, Jeremy S. Moore, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for his convictions for two counts of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000 and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective six-year sentence in confinement.  The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Lamar Mandell Cullom, was convicted in Count I of the indictment of casual exchange of a controlled substance as a lesser-included offense of the indicted offense of sale of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a drug-free zone. He was convicted in Count II of delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, within 1,000 feet of a drug-free zone.  The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of eleven months, twenty-nine days and fifteen years, respectively. Appellant now challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and testimony of a law enforcement officer that allegedly implied that appellant had a prior criminal history. Following our review, we affirm appellant’s convictions.  However, we remand for entry of a single judgment form indicating merger of the convictions.  The judgment form should reflect that appellant is a Range II, multiple offender and that the mandatory minimum period of incarceration for appellant’s range is twelve years.  The judgment form should also note that the “conviction offense name” is “violation – drug-free zone,” not “violation – drug-free school zone.”

The petitioner, Lawrence Freeze, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  The petitioner pled nolo contendere to aggravated sexual battery and rape, both Class B felonies, and received an effective sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction.  On appeal, he contends that the court erred in denying his petition because he was denied effective assistance of counsel, which resulted in an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea.  Specifically, he contends that trial counsel’s failure to be prepared for trial left him with no choice but to accept the agreement.  Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Preston Rucker, seeking post-conviction relief, argued that trial/appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to call a certain witness to contradict the victim's testimony and failed to request a jury instruction regarding the kidnapping charge against the petitioner. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court concluded that the petitioner failed to show that counsel was ineffective. We have carefully reviewed the matter and affirm the order denying relief to the petitioner.

This appeal concerns the measure of incidental damages in a condemnation proceeding. The State appeals the trial court’s denial of its motions for directed verdict and remittitur of incidental damages. Taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence offered by the landowners, we find that the award of incidental damages was properly supported, and therefore, we affirm.

The owner of approximately forty dogs filed a complaint against an animal welfare league for improperly removing the dogs from her property. She later added Lawrence County as a defendant. Lawrence County filed a motion to dismiss the owner’s complaint on the basis of governmental immunity. The trial court granted the county’s motion, and the owner appealed. Tennessee law requires that pleadings alleging negligence by a governmental entity overtly state that the tort was committed by an employee or employees of the governmental entity within the scope of his/her or their employment. The dog owner failed to include this assertion in any of her pleadings. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s judgment granting the county’s motion to dismiss the dog owner’s claims against it.

This case involves various causes of action related to the administration of an estate, specifically, the executor‘s action in failing to fund a residuary trust. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that no assets remained in the estate to fund the residuary trust, the expiration of the statute of limitations, and laches. Although we rely on different grounds, we affirm the trial court‘s order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant county alleging, inter alia, racial discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims, which motion the trial court granted in part and denied in part. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s remaining claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, disposing of the remainder of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appeals. Due to significant procedural shortcomings in plaintiff’s appellate brief, we are unable to reach the merits of her appeal. We therefore affirm.

Petitioner, Charles E. Jones, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, alleging that DNA testing of glass shards found at the crime scene would have resulted in a more favorable verdict or sentence. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. Perceiving no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Mousen Aden, appeals the denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without appointing counsel or holding a hearing after finding that the indictment was valid, the judgment was not facially void, and that the petitioner's sentence had not expired. On appeal, the petitioner contends that his indictment was invalid because it did not vest the trial court with jurisdiction to enter a proper judgment and failed to provide him with adequate protection from double jeopardy. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The trial court determined that Appellant Hanna (John) Nazi executed the contractual documents between the parties as the owner/proprietor of the Handy Peddler and that he was liable for a judgment in favor of Appellee Jerry‘s Oil Company, Inc. We affirm.

Plaintiff law firm and lawyer brought suit against defendant advertising companies alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint because the parties' contracts included a forum selection clause that provided all litigation arising from the contracts would take place in the state of Georgia. The trial court found the forum selection clause enforceable and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in enforcing the forum selection clause because the contracts are adhesion contracts and unconscionable. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Aggrieved of his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, the defendant, Kevin Price, appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.