Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his complaint against the prison’s medical staff for failure to properly diagnose and treat him. The trial court determined that Appellant prisoner’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which was not tolled by operation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s findings concerning his status as an indigent person. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and remand.

Appellant, Jackie Ray Elkins, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver not less than one-half of an ounce but not more than ten pounds of marijuana in a drug-free zone. This charge was the result of a traffic stop in Shelby Bottoms in Nashville, Tennessee and the subsequent search of the vehicle in which Appellant was travelling. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the proceeds of the search. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted Appellant as charged. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion and asks this Court to review his complaint under the plain error rule. In addition, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that plain error review is not necessary to do substantial justice and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and received a life sentence. In his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, he alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that a discharged alternate juror improperly communicated with the jury foreman; and that the trial court erred by failing to exclude from the evidence certain photographs and recordings and by failing to provide a special jury instruction on diminished capacity. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. This Court granted permission to appeal to address whether the communication by the alternate juror to the foreman entitled the defendant to a new trial. Because the State successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice that accompanies an improper communication with a juror, we find no error and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
 

This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s enrollment of a foreign judgment acquired by the petitioners against the respondent in Idaho, and the case was remanded for enforcement proceedings. On remand the respondent refused to comply with the Idaho judgment, so the petitioners filed a motion for contempt and for an order to compel compliance with the judgment. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The trial court found the respondent to be in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the Idaho judgment. The respondent now appeals. We dismiss the appeal, because the issues raised on appeal were not first raised in the trial court, and the respondent did not comply with either Rule 24(c) or Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this action asserting claims for fraudulent misrepresentation; civil conspiracy; negligence, breach of contract; and violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff appeals; we affirm.

The Appellant, James William Taylor, appeals the Williamson County Circuit Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion for correction of clerical errors on the face of his first degree murder judgment. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 36 motion. Upon review, we reverse the Appellant’s first degree murder judgment in case number 188-108 and remand the case to the Williamson County Circuit Court for entry of a corrected judgment showing that the Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and his conviction offense was a Class X felony pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-2-202 (Supp. 1987), that he was sentenced to a life sentence with release eligibility on that life sentence after service of thirty years pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(f) (Supp. 1987), and that the trial court imposed consecutive sentencing for the first degree murder, burglary, and robbery convictions.
 

In 1987, the Petitioner, James E. Williams, was convicted of armed robbery, assault with intent to commit first degree murder, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus seventy-five years. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentence on appeal. State v. James E. Williams, No. 88-172-III, 1988 WL 138843, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 30, 1988), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 3, 1989). During the next sixteen years, the Petitioner filed two petitions for post-conviction relief and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, all of which were denied by the post-conviction court. The Petitioner appealed each denial separately, and this Court affirmed the trial court each time. In 2012, the Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of error coram nobis in which he presented multiple allegations. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that the coram nobis court erred when it dismissed his petition without a hearing, contending that he presented in his petition newly discovered evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment.
 

Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) initially brought this action for foreclosure and damages against a borrower,TN Metro Holdings XII LLC (“TN Metro XII”) alleging default by failure to make scheduled principal and interest payments, by improperly allowing liens against the mortgaged property in violation of the loan agreements and by misapplication of rents collected from leasing the mortgaged property. FNMA subsequently filed an amended complaint seeking relief in the nature of personal liability against Defendant Selim Zherka under the loan. The trial court granted FNMA summary judgment and held both the borrower and “Key Principal” liable for the deficiency following a foreclosure sale and for damages. We vacate the summary judgment, holding that (1) FNMA failed to provide written notice and a thirty-day period to cure the alleged defaults as required by the parties’ agreement; and (2) there are genuine issues of material fact making summary judgment improper regarding FNMA’s claim for damages resulting from the alleged misapplication of rents.

This is a termination of parental rights case involving a set of young twins, Mya E. and Kaleah E. (“the Children”). The Children were born out of wedlock to Jasmine E. (“Mother”) and Darius M. (“Father”) on June 1, 2008. The Children, found to be dependent and neglected by Juvenile Court Order entered January 28, 2011, were placed in the custody of their maternal grandmother, Olivia E. Olivia E. filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Father and Mother on March 30, 2012. The petition alleged as grounds statutory abandonment and persistence of conditions. Mother later joined in the petition to terminate her parental rights. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition to terminate Father’s parental rights upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to visit and support them. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to removal persisted and were unlikely to be remedied in the near future. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Clayton Bezuidenhout, appeals from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2009 guilty plea to theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000. He contends that the trial court erred by concluding that the petition was untimely and that the one-year statute of limitations was not tolled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The Petitioner, Gregory Justice, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his jury convictions for possession with the intent to sell or deliver one-half gram or more of a controlled substance, facilitation of the sale of less than one-half gram of a controlled substance, and felonious possession of marijuana, and his concurrent sentences of fourteen years, five years, and three years, respectively. The Petitioner contends that the convictions should be set aside and that he should be granted a new trial because (1) the count charging possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than one-half gram of a controlled substance was duplicitous, (2) he was denied his constitutional right to a trial by a jury and jury unanimity, and (3) trial counsel provided the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.