APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. In concluding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, the trial court made specific findings for twelve of the twenty statutory best interest factors but declined to consider eight of the factors based upon a purported pleading deficiency. Mother appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Defendant, Thomas Lymn, appeals his Moore County Circuit Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established abandonment by failure to visit and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We reverse, holding that the record does not support the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence in support of the alleged statutory ground of termination.

A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Jonathan Andrew Berretta, of one count of vehicular homicide by intoxication and one count of vehicular homicide per se. The trial court merged those convictions and sentenced the Defendant to twelve years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises thirteen issues in three broad categories: challenges to the denial of his motion to suppress the seizure of his blood, trial issues, and a sentencing issue. Challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, he contends that the trial court erred by finding that(1) the affidavit supporting the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (“VUMC”) search warrant for his blood contained no false or reckless statements; (2)probable cause supported the search warrant and judicial subpoena; (3) the search warrant was not overbroad; (4) the search warrant and judicial subpoena established a sufficient nexus between VUMC and the evidence sought; (5) the VUMC blood draws were not the result of state action; and (6) an earlier warrantless EMS blood draw was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. Regarding his trial, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (7) admitting a life-in-being photograph of the victim; (8) finding that the VUMC specimen release form satisfied the business records exception to the rule against hearsay; (9) finding that chain of custody was established for the VUMC blood samples; (10) admitting the VUMC blood draw evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (11) instructing the jury on vehicular homicide per se in a manner that created an unconstitutional presumption of guilt; and (12) allowing the cumulative effect of those errors to deprive him of a fair trial. Finally, the Defendant maintains that the trial court erred in (13) ordering his sentence to run consecutively to a sentence he had pending in Davidson County at the time of these offenses. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Christopher W. Gadsden, Petitioner, sought post-conviction relief from his convictions for second-degree murder and theft, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because an attorney with the Office of the Public Defender of Metropolitan Nashville & Davidson County (herein “Public Defender’s Office”)previously represented the victim, thereby creating a conflict of interest that rendered trial counsel’s representation ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that four statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the minor child: abandonment, persistence of conditions, failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and severe child abuse. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Sheppard Washington, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court found that Petitioner’s request for relief, which was based upon a claim that his sentence had expired, was premature. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

This appeal involves a breach of contract action for specific performance of a commercial real estate purchase and sale agreement. The plaintiff buyer brought suit after the defendant sellers refused to convey the property due to a dispute over a mandatory tax withholding. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the buyer specific performance and attorney’s fees. The trial court found that the sellers were bound by the agreement because, even though their real estate agent had appended their electronic signatures without contemporaneous authorization, they later ratified the transaction. The trial court further concluded that the sellers’ total refusal to close constituted an anticipatory repudiation, thereby excusing the buyer’s lack of formal tender of the purchase price. The sellers appealed. We affirm.

Appellant filed a petition for accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking recusal of the trial judge under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because it appears that a written motion to recuse was only lodged with the trial court and because the trial court never entered an order on the written motion, we dismiss the appeal.

A mother petitioned to extend child support for her severely disabled child into adulthood. The court granted the petition. In doing so, the court used the child support guidelines to calculate the amount of support. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court should have included the child’s social security income in the calculations, but he did not file a transcript or a statement of the evidence. Because the lack of a transcript or statement of evidence prevents us from reaching the substance of the issue raised by the father, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon application of the Defendant, John Ernest Rediker, for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. The State has filed a response in opposition. The Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his request for special jury instructions in this case. Upon full consideration, the application is denied for the reasons stated below.

In this case involving Tennessee’s Public Records Act, the plaintiff requested copies of
proposals submitted in response to a request for proposals announced by the defendant
county. After the county denied the plaintiff’s request pursuant to an exception set forth
in Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-504(a)(28), the plaintiff filed a complaint with the
trial court. Upon the county’s motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Marty Lynn Judd, appeals from his Warren County Circuit Court convictions of second degree murder and possession of a prohibited weapon, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. He also asserts that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to hearsay and to leading questioning during the State’s direct examination of a witness. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Gregory Keontae Lyons, appeals from his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder; employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony; attempted sale of a Schedule I controlled substance; and conspiracy to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, for which he is serving an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude references to his age; and that the trial court failed to properly consider Defendant’s age as a mitigating factor in sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking to recuse the trial judge. Because Appellant did not file a written motion to recuse and because the trial court never entered an order on same, we dismiss the appeal.

A bookkeeper allegedly made unauthorized payments to herself from company funds. After a bench trial, the court found the bookkeeper breached her duty of loyalty to her employers and unjustly enriched herself. On appeal, the bookkeeper faults the trial court’s evidentiary decisions and contends that the plaintiffs’ claims and the damage award were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We affirm.

In 1996, a Montgomery County jury convicted the petitioner, Courtney B. Mathews, of four counts of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole plus twenty-five years in confinement. On June 24, 2025, the petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging “the indictment upon which his judgment is based is duplicitous and, therefore, void. ”The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding the petition failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Hunter Jay Chantler, appeals from his jury conviction for aggravated sexual battery and resulting eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that (1) the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction due to the victim’s lack of credibility and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by questioning the minor victim during the State’s direct examination at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this appeal, the appellants challenge administrative and legal fees the trial court awarded the administrators of the estate and the parties’ respective legal counsel. We have determined that these issues have been waived for a variety of reasons including the appellants’ failure to comply with Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6 and Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We find that the administrator of the estate is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered and expenses incurred in defending this appeal. We also find this appeal to be frivolous. We remand for the trial court to award the administrator an appropriate fee and to award damages in favor of the estate against the appellants, Robert Davidson, Sr. and Shuntae Davidson, for fees and expenses the estate incurred in defending this appeal.

The petitioner, David C. Sands, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Rutherford County Circuit Court, alleging newly discovered evidence exists that demonstrates his innocence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.