APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a petition for emergency custody and its
sua sponte entry of a joint mutual restraining order between the parents involved in a
custody dispute. We affirm.

This appeal concerns the enforcement of a restrictive covenant. A number of property owners (“Plaintiffs”) in the German Creek Cabin Site Subdivision sued fellow property owner Julia Cris Stevens (“Defendant”) in the Circuit Court for Grainger County (“the Trial Court”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs sought to prevent Defendant from completing a 400 square foot structure on her lot as it would constitute a second dwelling on the original lot in contravention of a restrictive covenant. The Trial Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor, ordering Defendant to remove the structure and granting permanent injunctive relief. Defendant appeals. She argues, among other things that it is inequitable to require her to remove the structure. She also contends that it is not a dwelling. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

This is a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff staffing agency alleged nonpayment
in accordance with the terms of its agreement with the defendant company. The
plaintiff sought recovery from the defendant company, its successor company, and
individuals involved in the sale of the defendant company to its successor. The trial court
awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff. We affirm.

Defendant, Carl Paige, pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder and agreed to an eight-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to a term of eight years to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request to suspend his sentence to probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Elizabeth Christmas and John M. Kington were romantically involved for many years.
When the parties’ relationship ended, Dr. Kington reported to the Hamilton County
Sheriff’s Office (“the Sheriff’s Office”) the theft of several items of jewelry from his home.
At the conclusion of the Sheriff’s Office’s investigation, a grand jury indicted Ms.
Christmas for theft of property valued at more than $250,000. The State of Tennessee (“the
State”) later dismissed the charge of theft before the case proceeded to trial. Ms. Christmas
subsequently filed a complaint and an amended complaint against Dr. Kington in the
Hamilton County Circuit Court (“Trial Court”) alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution
and abuse of process. Dr. Kington filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial
Court granted. Ms. Christmas appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the
judgment of the Trial Court.

The defendant, Benjamin Spencer Brown, appeals the trial court’s imposition of
consecutive sentences for his Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convictions of
criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Sean Longmire, of one count of first degree
murder and three counts of attempted first degree murder. On appeal, the Defendant asserts
that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court’s classification and distribution of assets,
formation of a parenting plan, and calculation of Husband’s child support obligation. Wife
also appeals the denial of her petition for criminal contempt. As appellee, Husband raises
issues regarding the allocation of the parties’ equity in the marital property, the enrollment
of the child in private school, and the distribution between the parties of education expenses
for the child. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s decisions regarding the division of
the parties’ property after minor modification, vacate the trial court’s decisions regarding
child custody and child support, and remand the case to the trial court for further
proceedings. Wife is barred from appealing the denial of her criminal contempt petition
and we decline to award Wife her attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

The Chester County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Jerry Ray Mullins, for the first-degree
murder of the victim, Samantha Melendez. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the
lesser-included offense of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a twenty-twoyear
sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues
that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because he acted in self-defense
when he shot the victim twice in the head. Following our review of the entire record and
the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the defendant, Rodney Paul Beech, pled guilty to driving under the influence (“DUI”) and DUI per se and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to probation after service of forty-eight hours in jail. As a condition of his plea, the defendant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based on lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop of his vehicle. Upon our review, we conclude the defendant failed to properly certify the question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2). Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant, Derrick Johnson, of
conspiracy to possess with the intent to sell 150 grams or more of heroin in Count 1 and
conspiracy to possess with the intent to deliver 150 grams or more of heroin in Count 2,
and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, the
Defendant argues (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial
court abused its discretion in allowing the State to present evidence of the November 19,
2017 phone conversations on redirect examination; (3) the trial court abused its discretion
in failing to replay the October 25, 2017 phone recordings for the jury; (4) the trial court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor, during its
rebuttal closing argument, improperly commented on the Defendant’s constitutional right
to remain silent; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an effective
eighteen-year sentence. After review, we remand the case for entry of corrected judgment
forms in Counts 1 and 2 as specified in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgments of
the trial court are affirmed.

Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant, Casey DeWayne
Hodge, appeals one certified question of law related to the trial court’s denial of his motion
to dismiss in which he alleged a speedy trial violation and two certified questions of law
related to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress in which he challenged the
constitutionality of a traffic stop. Discerning no error, we affirm. We remand for entry of
judgments on Counts 2 and 3 reflecting that the charges were dismissed in accordance with
the plea agreement.

The pro se Defendant, Marquette Benson, aka Marquette Mukes, appeals the summary
denial of his September 6, 2022 Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to
correct an illegal sentence. Because it is clear that the Defendant’s September 6, 2022
filing is merely a request for the trial court to reconsider its denial of the Defendant’s first
Rule 36.1 motion, which was summarily denied on October 4, 2021 for failure to state a
colorable claim, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Defendant, James Stephen Carder, was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury for 36 counts of theft of property in amounts ranging from less than $1,000 to $60,000 and two counts of aggregate theft in an amount greater than $60,000 but less than $250,000. Five of the theft counts were dismissed after the close of the State’s proof, and a petit jury convicted Defendant of 24 theft counts and both aggregate theft counts. The trial court merged those individual theft convictions involving the same victim and also merged the two counts of aggregate theft, and the court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to an effective 20 years’ incarceration and ordered him to pay $134,990 in restitution. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that law enforcement improperly investigated the case and interfered with his contracts. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of amended judgment forms to reflect the merger of the 24 individual theft convictions into count 37, the one aggregate theft conviction.

This is an appeal from a divorce decree that was initially entered in 2017, but the divorce action was not finalized until 2022. In this appeal, Wife argues that the trial court should not have divorced the parties because there were no valid grounds for divorce. Because the parties executed a valid marital dissolution agreement agreeing to be divorced on the ground of irreconcilable differences, we affirm the trial court’s decision to declare the parties divorced. We modify the divorce decree, however, to provide that Wife is awarded the divorce on that ground, consistent with the parties’ agreement. We further award Husband his attorney’s fees as required under the marital dissolution agreement.

The petitioner, Mack Mandrell Loyde, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The plaintiffs, a prospective adoptive couple and six other Tennessee taxpayers, brought this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147, which allows private child-placing agencies that receive state funding to deny services to prospective foster or adoptive parents based upon the agencies’ religious beliefs. A three-judge panel concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. We have determined that the plaintiffs have standing and reverse the decision of the three-judge panel.

The petitioner, Erick Bailey, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for
fingerprint analysis under the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021. After
review, we conclude the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in summarily
dismissing the petition and affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The petitioner, Glenard Cortez Thorne, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Davidson County Criminal Court, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because newly discovered evidence exists in his case. After our review, we conclude the petition is untimely and does not present a cognizable claim for coram nobis relief. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A husband and wife each had multiple children from prior relationships. After their marriage, the husband and wife agreed to a contract that would control the distribution of their estates, with funds passing first to the surviving spouse and then to be distributed after the second spouse’s death among their children. Both husband and wife have since died. Husband’s children brought suit, arguing that the distribution of assets in husband’s final will is contrary to the contract. Awarding summary judgment to husband’s children in this declaratory judgment action, the trial court determined that the distribution of the husband’s estate is controlled by the terms of the contract. The wife’s estate appealed. We vacate and remand.

The Defendant, Devon Allen Wall, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated kidnapping related to the same incident. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aggravated kidnapping convictions and challenges the trial court’s refusal to deliver a special jury instruction. Relative to his sufficiency challenge, the Defendant contends that there was no significant confinement or removal of the victims and that the aggravated kidnappings were incidental to the underlying crime of aggravated robbery. Regarding his second challenge, the Defendant contends that the requested jury instruction concerning “relatively trivial restraints” provided crucial guidance for the jury on Tennessee’s aggravated kidnapping statute. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A husband and wife entered into a marital dissolution agreement in 2019. Part of the agreement provided that once the husband retired from the United States Army, he would pay the wife alimony in futuro in an amount equal to the amount of military retirement to which the wife was entitled under the agreement. In 2021, the wife filed a motion for contempt alleging, inter alia, that the husband was not complying with the alimony requirements. The husband argued that the parties’ agreement was unenforceable because it is pre-empted by federal law. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the husband had failed to comply with the agreement but that the contempt was not willful. The husband appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. We also grant the wife’s request for her appellate attorney’s fees.

Defendant, Hilton Lee Chatman, was charged in an eleven-count indictment on drugrelated offenses. A jury convicted him of possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in Count 1; possession with intent to sell heroin in Count 3; possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony drug offense in Count 10; and possession of drug paraphernalia in Count 11. Defendant was found not guilty of the remaining seven counts of the indictment. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to a total effective sentence of twenty-four years and six months. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, his sentence is excessive, his motion for new trial was erroneously denied, and the trial court failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure when it rejected his guilty plea. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable authority, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted Defendant, Brian Allen Armstrong, of two counts of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and one count of possession of a prohibited
weapon. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective term of fifteen years in the
Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his requested
jury instruction on the defense of necessity. After reviewing the record, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Robert Joseph Atkins, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court
of second degree murder, tampering with evidence, and unlawful possession of a handgun
by a convicted felon and received an effective thirty-one-year sentence. On appeal, he
claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his murder conviction, (2) the trial
court erred by admitting testimony about his prior assault of the victim, (3) the trial court
erred by admitting an unauthenticated video into evidence, (4) the trial court should have
granted a new trial because a police officer, who testified at trial, was the subject of an
internal affairs investigation, (5) the trial court committed plain error by allowing the
medical examiner to testify outside her area of expertise, and (6) he was denied his right to
a fair trial under the cumulative error doctrine. Based upon the oral arguments, the record,
and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.