APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Astin D. Hill, contends that the trial court improperly (1) denied all forms of alternative sentencing in direct contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-122, which prohibits continuous confinement for non-violent property offenses, and (2) imposed consecutive sentencing based on its erroneous finding that the Defendant had an extensive criminal history. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court’s failure to follow the dictates of section 40-35-122 was in error and affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for resentencing.

The petitioner, Demetrius Wynn, filed in the Knox County Criminal Court a petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell. He alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Ronald Lynn Cook, pled guilty to six counts of forgery valued at less than $1,000, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-105, -114. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Derrick Hodge, filed in the Hamilton County Criminal Court a petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition because it was untimely. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the holdings in Missouri v. Frye, __ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), establish a new rule of law that is entitled to retroactive application to cases on collateral review. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Maryam Mubashir (“Wife”) sued Mubashir Mahmood (“Husband”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for Hamblen County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court granted the divorce. Husband appeals, raising numerous issues concerning parenting time, arrearages, and alimony. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court as it pertains to certain arrearages and Husband’s parenting time with the parties’ children. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Petitioner, Felix Tamayo, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery and agreed to allow the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive twelve-year sentences for a total effective sentence of sixty years. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner’s sentence. State v. Felix Tamayo, No. M2010-00800-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1876315, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May. 16, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2011). The Petitioner timely filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief on the basis that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s denial, maintaining that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he was not advised that he could receive consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father’s parental rights were terminated on the ground of abandonment for willful failure to visit and willful failure to support. Because the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights fails to set forth sufficient findings, we are unable to adequately address the issue of abandonment in this case. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the chancery court and we remand for entry of an order that sets forth sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the termination of Father’s parental rights.

This appeal stems from the denial of a Rule 60.02 motion, filed by an attorney on his own behalf, to set aside an order. The attorney tried unsuccessfully to derail a sheriff’s sale of his client’s property through the use of an elaborate contrivance. In the aftermath, contempt charges were filed against the attorney. In the ensuing civil contempt proceedings, the trial court entered an order that concluded that the trial court was unable to hold the errant attorney in civil contempt of court. The order included obiter dictum in which the trial court questioned the attorney’s veracity as an officer of the court, stated that he could have been held in criminal contempt had he been charged with such, and referred the matter to the Board of Professional Responsibility. Over five years later, the attorney and his client filed the Rule 60.02 motion that is the subject of this appeal, asking the trial court to set aside the order with the offending dicta. The trial court dismissed the Rule 60.02 motion, finding that it either did not have subject matter jurisdiction to set aside the order or, in the alternative, that the motion to set aside was untimely and without merit. The attorney and his client appeal. We reverse the trial court’s holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Rule 60.02 motion, but affirm the trial court’s alternative holding that the motion to set aside is untimely and wholly without merit. In light of improper statements made in the attorney’s appellate brief about the trial judge, we also find it necessary to refer the appellant attorney to the Board of Professional Responsibility.

Mother and Stepfather filed petition seeking to terminate biological Father’s parental rights and to permit Stepfather to adopt Child. Trial court found Father had abandoned Child by failing to visit or support Child in the four months preceding the petition’s filing and that it was in Child’s best interest to terminate Father’s rights. Father appealed. We reverse the trial court’s judgment terminating Father’s rights because the evidence was not clear and convincing that it is in Child’s best interest that Father’s rights be terminated.

I concur in the majority opinion in this case and only write separately to respectfully comment about the issue of the trial judge’s Facebook “friendship” with the confidential informant in this case.
 

A Stewart County jury convicted the Defendant, Jeffrey M. Forguson, of sale of a schedule IV drug (Alprazolam) and sale of a Schedule III drug (Dihydrocodeinone). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve consecutive six-year sentences for an effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) consecutive sentencing was improper in his case; and (3) the trial court could not properly fulfill its role as thirteenth juror. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Lawrence Fred Slagle (“Husband”) appeals the Trial Court’s finding that he has the ability to pay to purge his civil contempt. We find no error in the Trial Court’s determination that Husband failed to make a prima facie showing that he had an inability to pay the purge amount, and we affirm.

This appeal involves Wife’s attempt to set aside a judgment entered against her relating to her failure to fulfill seven promissory notes. The trial court granted Wife’s motion to set aside, in part, affirming her liability for three of the seven notes but holding that Wife was not liable for the remaining notes. Wife appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jeremiah R. Key, sought post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions for aggravated robbery, second degree murder, and coercion of a witness. The post-conviction court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, petitioner raises the following issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to adequately communicate with petitioner; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to ensure that his guilty pleas were voluntarily entered; and (3) involuntariness of his guilty pleas. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this 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. In this case the employee was an over-the-road truck driver attempting to make a delivery of refrigerated goods in Atlanta, Georgia. Because she was late, she was forced to wait 11 hours in her truck in high temperatures without air conditioning. She suffered a ruptured aneurysm as she exited the truck to complete the unloading process, which she alleged was caused by the high temperatures, anxiety, and emotional stress. Her employer denied the claim, and she filed suit for workers’ compensation benefits in Rutherford County, Tennessee. The trial court found that the ruptured aneurysm was caused by the stress of work conditions and awarded 65% permanent partial disability. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Victor Thompson, was convicted by a Gibson County Circuit Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210(a)(1), 39-14-103 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive terms of twenty-five years for second degree murder and eleven months, twenty-nine days for theft. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred during sentencing. We conclude that the lengths of the sentences are proper but that the trial court erred by failing to state on the record the facts and conclusions which support consecutive sentences pursuant to State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tenn. 1995). We remand the case in order of the court to make its findings and conclusions on the record.

The Petitioner, William Arthur Shelton, appeals the Morgan County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 2004 convictions for first degree murder, three counts of false imprisonment, and two counts of vandalism and his effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by summarily denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B from the Trial Court’s denial of a Motion to Recuse in a post-divorce proceeding. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by the Petitioner/Former Husband, Joel David Constance (“Petitioner”), pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we affirm the Trial Court.

This appeal questions the propriety of the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-505(g) (Supp. 2013). The statute provides that an award of fees and costs can be made when a municipality wrongfully fails to disclose public documents requested pursuant to the Public Records Act. In the prior appeal of this action, this Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the plaintiff fees and costs she incurred in seeking the disclosure of public documents from the City of Chattanooga pursuant to the referenced statute. Upon remand, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking attorney’s fees and costs exceeding $70,000.00. The trial court found that the total fees and costs sought by the plaintiff were unreasonable and excessive, and the court reduced the amount of fees awarded to $50,284.50. The court also reduced the costs awarded for mileage and court reporter charges. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of an award of the full amount of fees and costs sought.

The Defendant, Travis Andrew Harris, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-12-101, 39-13-403, 39-16-603 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of eleven years for the attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the evading arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction and (2) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony as substantive evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves a veterinarian’s common law and statutory claims for retaliatory discharge and her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant employer filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because the veterinarian had not introduced expert proof to support her claim. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claims. Both parties filed applications for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, which were granted by the trial court and by this Court. We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claims. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Petitioner, Tina G. Strickland, appeals the Carter County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her 2010 conviction upon a guilty plea for vehicular homicide and her twelve-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by finding that her guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, the State of Tennessee, appeals after the Hardeman County Circuit Court granted a motion to dismiss the indictments against Appellee, Virgil Calvin Howell. Appellee was indicted by the Hardeman County Grand Jury for three counts of contracting without a license in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 62-6-103 and 62-6-120. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the indictments. On appeal, the State insists that the trial court improperly determined that Appellee was not a contractor because Appellee was supervising more than $25,000 of improvements to buildings that he owns and are intended for public use. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the trial court improperly dismissed the indictments where the plain language of the statute indicates that the actions performed by Appellee amounted to contracting as defined by the statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B results from the trial court’s denial of a post-trial recusal motion. The Appellant filed a motion seeking recusal of the trial judge from presiding over the preparation of the record for her appeal of the substantive issues in the case. The trial judge denied the motion by written order, making specific findings of fact. The Appellant appeals. Discerning no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to question the trial judge’s impartiality, we affirm the denial of Appellant’s recusal motion.

The Petitioner, Luis Rodriguez, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus regarding his 2008 conviction for especially aggravated robbery, for which he is serving a twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition when his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.