APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

John Wayne McDonald (“Father”) and Jamie Rhea McDonald Bunnell (“Mother”) had two children during their marriage before divorcing in 2012. The permanent parenting plan entered with the divorce named Mother the primary residential parent. After Mother remarried and relocated with the children, Father filed a petition to modify the existing parenting plan and asked the court to designate him the children’s primary residential parent. Father argued that the behavior of Mother’s new husband (“Stepfather”) around the children constituted a material change in circumstance and that the modification would be in the children’s best interest. At a hearing, Father presented evidence that Stepfather used foul language around the children and had, in jest, referred to them using a racial slur.  The trial courtfound thatStepfather’sbehavior,though “distastefuland ill-advised,”did not constitute a material change in circumstance. Father appealed. After careful consideration, we conclude that the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case involving three minor children. In April 2012, temporary custody of the children was granted to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), and the children were placed in foster care. DCS subsequently filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father on September 24, 2013. The petition alleged, as statutory grounds for termination, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistent conditions, and severe child abuse. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition as to the mother upon finding that DCS had proven by clear and convincing evidence the grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and (2) persistence of the conditions leading to removal. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The mother has appealed.1 Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a divorce case. After the trial court entered the final decree of divorce and awarded Wife/Appellee attorney’s fees associated with a motion to compel, Husband/Appellant filed this appeal. Although Husband did not formally file a motion to recuse either trial judge involved in this case, his appeal centers on alleged judicial and opposing counsel misconduct. Husband also seeks a new trial. We affirm.

The Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, and we therefore have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.

Appellant, Justin Andrew Jones, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty- ine days, suspended to probation after forty-eight hours of incarceration. As part of the plea agreement, appellant reserved a certified question of law in which he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop appellant and because the officer was acting outside of his community caretaking function when he stopped appellant. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we dismiss appellant’s appeal.

The issue on this appeal is whether the parties’ prenuptial agreement (the agreement) is valid and enforceable. The trial court held that it was not. The court did so based upon its finding that Claude R. Ellis (Husband) failed to prove that he provided a full and fair disclosure of his assets to Melisa Jane Godfrey Ellis (Wife) before the agreement was executed. The trial court further found (1) that, given the date the draft agreement was furnished to wife, she did not have an opportunity to seek independent counsel for advice; (2) that the agreement was unfair; and (3) that Wife was under duress when the draft was presented to her. Applying the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Randolph v. Randolph, 937 S.W.2d 815 (Tenn. 1996), and its progeny, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2009, the Petitioner, Jeremy Shane Grooms, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued over $1,000 and aggravated burglary, and he was sentenced to eight years. One year of his sentence was to be served in jail, with the remainder to be served on community corrections. In December of 2009, a warrant was issued for the Petitioner’s arrest, alleging that he had violated his community corrections sentence by driving under the influence (“DUI”) and by attempting to break into and enter a vehicle. The warrant stated that the Petitioner had been sentenced to twelve years of community corrections for his original convictions. In 2014, the Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, contending that his sentence had expired. The trial court dismissed the Petitioner’s petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition because “it met the qualifications for relief under the statute.” The State counters that the appeal is untimely and further that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus relief.

The sole issue presented in this appeal concerns the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103, the ten-year statute of repose under the Tennessee Products Liability Act and the exceptions to the statute of repose for asbestos claims and silicone gel breast implant claims, but not for silica-related claims. After working as a sandblaster for thirty years, Plaintiff developed silica-related injuries. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced a products liability action against several silica manufacturers and suppliers, which was filed outside the ten-year period. When the defendants moved for summary judgment contending the action was timebarred by the ten-year statute of repose, Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the statute of repose as applied to silica claimants on equal protection grounds. Utilizing a rational basis analysis, the trial court found that silica claims were not similarly situated by injury or class to asbestos claims, and, if they were similarly situated, a rational basis exists to distinguish between the two. The trial court also found that silica has no similarity to silicone gel breast implants. Thus, the trial court summarily dismissed the action as timebarred based on the ten-year statute of repose under the Tennessee Products Liability Act, specifically Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103(a). We affirm.

Department of Children’s Services filed petition to terminate mother and father’s parental rights to two minor children. Mother subsequently surrendered her parental rights, and the trial court found father abandoned the minor children by willful failure to support and willful failure to visit. The trial court also found termination of father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Father appeals. We affirm the trial court’s finding that father abandoned his children by willfully failing to support them;however,we have concluded that the evidence is insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that father’s visitation with his children was merely token and that he willfully failed to visit his children. We affirm the trial court’s finding that termination of father’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Therefore, we affirm the termination of father’s parental rights.
 

In this termination of parental rights case, Father appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Father was convicted of murdering the child’s mother and is imprisoned on a life sentence. We have reviewed the evidence and affirm the trial court in all respects.

The petitioner, Houston Isley, appeals pro se from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2012 convictions of aggravated sexual battery, incest, and attempted rape of a child and which was styled as requesting deoxyribonucleic acid “DNA”) analysis. Because the petitioner failed to allege any basis to support an order for DNA analysis and because his petition for post-conviction relief is otherwise procedurally barred, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

An employee injured his head, neck, and back in a tractor-trailer accident while working for his employer. The employee was ultimately diagnosed with a nerve-entrapment condition, which the employer denied was caused by the accident. The trial court found in the employee’s favor and awarded benefits. The employer appeals asserting that the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony of an accident reconstruction engineer on the issue of causation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred by excluding portions of the expert’s testimony. Despite the error, the judgment of the trial court is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is affirmed.

Petitioner, Mariet L. Patrick, was convicted of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, possession of .5 ounces or more of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. For these crimes, he received an effective sentence of twenty years. Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Erice Dewayne Wallace, appeals the dismissal of his second petition for postconviction. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the postconviction court was correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief. We also find that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Haywood County jury convicted the Defendant, Shawn O’Neal Taliaferro, of second degree murder and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a Range II offender, to serve consecutive sentences of forty years for the second degree murder conviction and four years for the possession of a weapon by a convicted felon conviction, for a total effective sentence of forty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence; and (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender and imposed consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In this divorce appeal, Wife appeals the trial court’s rulings with regard to the calculation of child support, the award of alimony, the requirement that she reimburse Husband for one-half of the mortgage payments on the marital home until the home is sold, and the trial court’s refusal to order an income assignment to secure Husband’s child support obligation. We vacate the trial court’s judgment with regard to child support and alimony, and remand for the entry of an order containing appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the trial court’s order requiring Wife to reimburse Husband for the mortgage payment. However, we reverse the trial court’s refusal to order an income assignment to secure the child support obligation. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part.

This is a termination of parental rights case brought by the guardian ad litem. The trial court terminated Mother/Appellant’s parental rights on the grounds of severe child abuse pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(4), and persistence of conditions under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3). The trial court also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Because there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support both the grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights and the trial court’s finding on best interest, we affirm and remand.

The trial court dismissed this detainer appeal for failure to post a bond in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-18-130(b)(2). Because Appellant’s brief contains no argument regarding the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-18-130(b)(2), we affirm.

The petitioner, Tray D. Turner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery and resisting arrest, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury found the Defendant, Gregory Duff, guilty of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, Class B felonies. See T.C.A. § 39-13-304. The trial court merged the two counts and sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to nineteen years’ imprisonment at 100 percent release eligibility. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in admitting 911 recordings into evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment 1 of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury found the Defendant, Larry Lee Smith, guilty of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and two counts of  ggravated kidnapping, Class B felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-502, -304. The trial court merged the two counts of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of life without parole. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of his prior felony convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in the manner in which it allowed the State to present proof of his prior convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 2008, the Defendant, Justin William Voto, pleaded guilty to kidnapping and was granted judicial diversion for a period of ten years. In 2013, the Defendant’s supervising officer filed a warrant to revoke his judicial diversion based upon new charges. At subsequent hearings, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s judicial diversion, entered a judgment of conviction, and sentenced him to ten years of supervised probation. The Defendant filed a notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending, the Defendant’s probation officer filed a warrant to revoke his probation based upon the Defendant’s failure to follow probation requirements, and the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation sentence and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. In this consolidated appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it revoked his judicial diversion and his probation sentence. The Defendant also asserts that the trial court’s imposition of a ten-year sentence was improper because  the proper range in this case is three to six years. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment revoking the Defendant’s judicial diversion, vacate the ten-year sentence imposed, and remand for a sentencing hearing.

An employee sustained a work-related injury to his back and leg and returned to work but eventually resigned due to his continued back and leg pain. The trial court found that the employee established a compensable injury, did not have a meaningful return to work, and awarded sixty-eight percent permanent partial disability benefits. The employer appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in finding that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work and in awarding excessive benefits. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Dwight Gossett, was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, Class B felonies, and sentenced to two consecutive twelve-year sentences for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the forensic interviews of the victims as substantive evidence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123 (2010) because the statute is unconstitutional; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the defendant’s prior bad act; (4) the trial court committed plain error when it failed to require the State to make an election of offenses and when it failed to instruct the jury as to the election of offenses; (5) the State made a prejudicially improper closing argument; (6) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence inconsistent with the principles of the Sentencing Act; and (7) the cumulative effect of these errors violated the defendant’s due process rights. After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior bad act and that the prosecutor delivered an improper closing argument. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.

Appellant, Thomas Fancher Greenwood, was found guilty of felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child neglect, reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense of felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child neglect.  The trial court merged the reckless homicide conviction with the felony murder conviction and sentenced appellant to life in prison for felony murder and two twenty-year concurrent sentences for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect, resulting in an effective sentence of life in prison.  He now appeals his judgments and convictions on the following grounds: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress all information contained in his cellular telephone, which was seized by law enforcement officers; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing hospital and autopsy photographs of the victim to be admitted into evidence; (4) whether the trial court erred in permitting Dr. Seyler to testify with regard to the cause of the victim’s injuries; (5) whether the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Seyler to view the video recording of the victim and render an expert opinion based thereon; (6) whether the trial court erred by allowing Detective Stone to testify that marks on the victim’s neck resembled fingerprints; (7) whether the trial court erred by permitting Amy Vickers to testify with regard to statements made by R.K.; and (8) whether the trial court erred in sentencing appellant.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.