APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Knox County jury found the Defendant, Tracy Dale Tate, guilty of one count each of sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of an elementary school and one count each of sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a recreational center. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-417, -432. The trial court merged count two into count one and merged count four into count three, resulting in convictions for sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of an elementary school and sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a recreational center. The Defendant received a total effective sentence of thirty years. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. He further argues that the trial court erred by failing to merge his four guilty verdicts into a single conviction, and the State concedes this point. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions, but we agree that the trial court erred by failing to merge all the Defendant’s guilty verdicts into a single conviction, and we therefore remand for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting this merger.

The Defendant, Tammy Joy Ogden, pleaded guilty in case number 35CC1-2014-CR-18 to delivery of morphine, a Class C felony, and to delivery of carisoprodol, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417(a)(2) (2012) (amended 2014) (delivery), 39-17-408(b)(1)(I) (2014) (classifying morphine as a Schedule II controlled substance), 39-17-412(c)(5) (2014) (classifying carisoprodol as a Schedule IV controlled substance). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent terms of ten years' confinement for the morphine conviction and eight years' confinement for the carisoprodol conviction. In case number 35CC1-2014-CR-113, the Defendant pleaded guilty to delivery of morphine, a Class C felony, and to delivery of alprazolam, a Class D felony. See id. §§ 39-17-417(a)(2) (delivery); 39-17-408(b)(1)(I) (morphine); 39-17-412(c)(1) (classifying alprazolam as a Schedule IV controlled substance). The court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent terms of ten years' confinement for the morphine conviction and eight years' confinement for the alprazolam conviction. The court also ordered the sentences in each case to be served consecutively to each other, for an effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the court erred by (1) denying her alternative sentencing and (2) imposing partially consecutive service of the sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order modifying child support and setting arrearage. The trial court’s calculation of child support arrearage includes a set off for credits given the Appellee Father for necessaries provided. The trial court also found that Father was responsible for one-half of the children’s private school tuition for the three year period prior to Appellant Mother filing her petition for reimbursement of those expenses. The trial court further found that the parties had sufficient income to continue sending their children to private school and that each party should be responsible for one-half of the costs of the private school tuition and fees. Mother appeals. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for a fresh determination of child support arrearages from April 2007 forward, and sufficient findings on the issue of wage assignment in accordance with this opinion.

The Defendant, Jeffery Combs, appeals as of right from his jury convictions for eighteen counts of forgery and one count of theft of property valued at $1,000.00 or more but less than $10,000.00, for all of which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, arguing that his identity was not sufficiently established to support the eighteen counts of forgery; that one count of forgery was for an electronic check which he did not sign and, therefore, cannot be guilty of; that he cannot intend to steal property or defraud someone of their money if that person was known to have died; and that it was improper to aggregate the amount of each separate forgery to support the conviction for Class D felony theft. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This is an appeal from the grant of two motions for directed verdict. Appellants contracted with Appellee chimneysweep company to redesign and reconstruct portions of their fireplace and chimney to address a problem with smoke escaping into the den, upper floors, and attic. More than a year after the construction was completed, Appellants’ home was damaged by a fire, which started when wood flooring joists in close proximity to the firebox ignited. Appellants brought claims for negligence and breach of contract against Appellee. The case was tried before a jury. At the close of Appellants’ proof, the trial court granted the Appellee’s motions for directed verdict on the ground that the Appellants had failed to establish that the Appellee owed them a duty of care to conduct a destructive investigation of the safety of the Appellants’ fireplace and also on the ground that the suit was barred by the applicable statute of repose. We affirm and remand.

This appeal concerns a child custody dispute between a child’s Mother and Grandparents. When the child was one year old, Mother signed an order transferring custody of the child to Grandparents. One year later, Mother petitioned to modify custody and have the child returned to her. Grandparents claimed that Mother was addicted to drugs and emotionally unstable. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that Mother presented a risk of substantial harm to the child if custody was returned to her. However, the court granted Mother visitation for the majority of each year. Grandparents appealed, claiming the trial court erred by granting more parenting time to Mother than to Grandparents. We affirm.  

Former Tennessee State University Professor filed a claim for damages, asserting causes of action for breach of contract and negligent deprivation of statutory rights. On the State’s motion to dismiss the claim, the Claims Commission held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim and that the professor failed to state a claim for negligent deprivation of statutory rights; accordingly, the Commission granted the State’s motion. Professor appeals. We reverse the dismissal of the breach of contract claim and remand for further proceedings; in all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner, Antonio Johnson, appeals the summary dismissal of his two petitions for writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his sentences on the basis that the trial court failed to properly award all requisite pre-trial jail credits.  Following our extensive review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jimmy Heard, stands convicted of criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and attempted second degree murder, for which he received an effective twenty-nine-year sentence.  He unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief from his convictions and now appeals, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to: (1) submit a transcript of the hearing on petitioner’s motion to recuse the trial judge; (2) address petitioner’s bond increase without a hearing; (3) address petitioner’s allegedly unlawful interrogation by law enforcement officers; and (4) object to a judge hearing his appeal who allegedly was once assigned to hear his case at trial.  Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, William Keith Blackburn, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery. He received an effective life sentence. Petitioner challenged his convictions on appeal, and a panel of this court affirmed the judgments of the trial court. State v. William Keith Blackburn, No. M2009-01140-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 2893083 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 20, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 19, 2011). On appeal, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call John Haggard, Adrian Rich, and Brent Olive as witnesses at trial. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, John Edward Lynch, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. After the post-conviction court was unable to locate the Petitioner for ten months because the Petitioner had been transferred to federal custody and did not notify the court that his address had changed, the post-conviction court “sua sponte” dismissed the Petition on its merits. After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the petition alleged a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby entitling Petitioner to appointed counsel and to an opportunity to amend his petition with the aid of post-conviction counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed and remanded.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Hen Lac Liu, of four counts of sexual battery. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence; (2) that the trial court improperly excluded defense evidence of the victim’s bias and lack of credibility; and (3) that the cumulative effect of these errors warrants a new trial. After a thorough review, we conclude that the cumulative effect of the errors by the trial court warrant a new trial for the Defendant.

This action was filed against a surgeon for breach of an employment agreement by his employers, a group owned equally by four optometrists and one non-physician. The trial court found that the group was entitled to recover damages arising from the breach. The surgeon appeals. We affirm.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the defendant in General Sessions Court for problems related to the remodel of her residence. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to “withdraw” her complaint. The General Sessions Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Approximately one year after the dismissal, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment. The General Sessions Court denied the motion. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm the decision of the Circuit Court.

The petitioner, Gary Bohannon, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and received a life sentence. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the postconviction court denied. He now appeals, arguing that his right to due process and a fair trial was violated by statements that the trial court made to the jury during voir dire. He also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel did not object to the statements of the trial court, failed to ask for a continuance or a recess after the direct testimony of a witness, failed to locate and call a witness, and erroneously stated in closing argument that the petitioner made a statement to police. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on K.G.S. (the Child), the minor daughter of K.G.S. (Mother).1 The Department of Children’s Services (DCS) took emergency custody of the Child based on allegations of sexual abuse and lack of supervision. The trial court adjudicated the Child dependent and neglected. Both parents conceded the factual basis for this holding. After a trial, the court terminated Mother's parental rights after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) grounds for termination were established, and (2) termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother appeals and challenges each of these holdings. We affirm.

This appeal arises from an action to quiet title to property that was acquired by Plaintiff at a tax sale in 2008. The former owner of the property opposed the petition contending he did not receive proper notice of the tax sale and, therefore, the sale was void. Following discovery, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment contending there were no material facts in dispute and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment quieting title in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant appeals contending the court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material facts exist concerning whether the county provided proper notice of the tax sale. He also contends the trial court failed to state the legal grounds upon which it granted the motion as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. We have concluded that Plaintiff filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment demonstrating that it acquired title through an order confirming the tax sale, which shifted the burden of production to Defendant to establish that a genuine dispute of material fact exists that precludes summary judgment. However, Defendant failed to carry that burden. As for Rule 56.04, the trial court failed to state the legal grounds upon which the motion was granted; however, we are able to discern from the record the grounds for granting the motion; therefore, this omission constitutes harmless error. There being no dispute of material fact concerning whether the county provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the tax sale, Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

Defendant, Kyle Roger Stewart, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of probation. On March 21, 2012, Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated burglary. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant received concurrent sentences of four years with 180 days to be served in confinement and the balance to be suspended on probation. Defendant also agreed to pay $17,875.00 in restitution to the victims. On December 19, 2013, a “Probation Violation Report” was filed, alleging that Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report a change in his residence, failing to report to his probation officer, and failing to pay restitution as ordered. Following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered Defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. Defendant appeals and asserts that the trial court denied him procedural due process by failing to make adequate findings regarding the evidence supporting his probation revocation. Defendant also asserts that the trial court’s decision to revoke probation and order Defendant to serve his sentence does not comply with the sentencing principles. Having reviewed the record before us and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Otis Quirino Loyola, Sr., appeals his Montgomery County Circuit Court convictions of aggravated child neglect and aggravated child abuse which resulted in an effective 20-year sentence to confinement.  On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

Appellant, Roy Lee Sewell, pleaded guilty to the sale of dihydrocodeinone and the sale of alprazolam.  Appellant was placed on probation as a result of his plea agreement, and after appellant’s conviction on new charges, the trial court revoked his probation.  On appeal, appellant argues that his probation had expired prior to this revocation due to an illegal extension of his probation a year earlier.  After reviewing the record, the arguments, and the relevant law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a foreclosure on a deed of trust. Lisa Gay Love (“Love”) sued Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (“SunTrust”), and Self Help Ventures Fund (“Self Help”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) alleging that the foreclosure of her home was wrongful. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Love had defaulted on her mortgage, that SunTrust had exercised its power under the deed of trust to foreclose, and that FNMA had obtained a final judgment in an earlier detainer action. Love, in turn, argued that, because FNMA was not named on the deed at the time of the detainer action, FNMA lacked standing and the detainer judgment is void. The Trial Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Defendants had established res judicata. Love appeals. We hold that the judgment in the detainer action is a final judgment, that we will not revisit the issue of FNMA’s standing in that suit, and that res judicata bars Love’s claims. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court

Defendant, Michael Crockett, was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury for third offense driving on a suspended license, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and theft over $500. Defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained from the traffic stop and subsequent search of his vehicle. In his motion, Defendant asserted that: 1) probable cause did not exist to conduct a traffic stop of Defendant’s vehicle; 2) the duration of the stop was unreasonable and resulted in an unlawful detention of Defendant; and 3) the canine sweep of Defendant’s vehicle was improper. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant subsequently entered a guilty plea to possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was sentenced to three years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As part of his plea, Defendant reserved a certified question of law, in which he challenges the trial court’s ruling on his motion to suppress. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.