APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Matthew Saunders, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of judicial diversion and entry of judgments of conviction in two cases. Specifically, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his diversion by failing to timely disclose multiple social media accounts when he registered as a sex offender. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Brent Paul Moon, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective three-year probationary sentence for felony evading arrest, simple possession of methamphetamine, and driving on a revoked license. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and, as such, the probation violation should be dismissed. Next, he contends that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements at the revocation hearing because no “good cause” existed for the statements’ entry and that the statements were not reliable. Lastly, he claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation and running the revocation sentence consecutively to the sentence for his new criminal convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for correction of a clerical error on the Defendant’s judgment form for simple possession of methamphetamine.

The tenants appeal from the judgment in this action involving a lease with a purchase option for real property. We vacate the attorney fee award to the landlords. We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects.

This appeal stems from the trial court’s granting of Appellee’s petition for an order of protection against Appellant. We do not reach the merits of Appellant’s argument because her brief does not comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee—most notably by failing to include a statement of issues presented for review. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

In 2024, the Defendant, Dana Kelly Teasley, pleaded guilty to eighteen counts of theft and fraud-related charges, and the trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of twelve years of probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal concerns a homeowner’s attempt to vacate an arbitration award entered after a dispute arose regarding the homeowner’s contract with a construction company to build a deck on the homeowner’s property. We have determined that the trial court properly confirmed the arbitration award and that the contractor waived any argument that the trial court erred by not awarding the company its attorney’s fees at the trial level. However, we remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of the contractor’s reasonable appellate attorney’s fees.

The Defendant, John Allen Hessmer, was convicted by a Smith County Criminal Court jury of possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and driving while in possession of methamphetamine, a Class B misdemeanor. The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding photographs relating to his passenger, Natasha Jordan, in violation of the Defendant’s due process rights to present a defense; (2) whether the trial court erred in preventing a defense witness’s testimony about her knowledge of Ms. Jordan; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding impeachment evidence relating to an arresting officer’s employment history in violation of the Defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him; (4) whether the State violated State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), for failing to preserve the patrol vehicle video recording of the Defendant’s traffic stop; (5) whether the Defendant is entitled to a resentencing hearing due to the trial court’s admission of a video recording at sentencing of the Defendant that was not beforehand disclosed by the State; (6) whether the trial judge erred by not recusing himself; and (7) whether the cumulative effect of the various alleged errors rendered the Defendant’s trial unfair. Based on our review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions. However, pursuant to State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tenn. 2015), we remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment in count three to reflect that the sentence imposed for the Defendant’s misdemeanor conviction of possession of methamphetamine while driving was merged into the felony possession of methamphetamine conviction in count one.

This appeal arises from a petition to determine custody and establish parenting time. Following a two-day trial, the court ruled that the parents shall have joint legal custody of their two-year-old child and that the mother shall be the primary residential parent. The court also established a parenting schedule, pursuant to which the mother was awarded more parenting time than the father. The father appeals the designation of the mother as the primary residential parent and the allocation of parenting time. Finding no error, we affirm.

In 2019, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Andre Bowen, of facilitation of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court ordered him to serve an effective sentence of seventy-two years of incarceration. On appeal, this court affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Bowen, No. W2019-01210-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 1400929, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 13, 2021), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 15, 2021). The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought relief pursuant to a writ of error coram nobis. Bowen v. State, No. W2022-00229-CCA-R3-ECN, 2022 WL 17408878, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2022), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 8, 2023). The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief contending that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Petitioner appeals offering multiple grounds for a due process tolling of the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Defendant, Fernando Ballard, appeals the trial court’s decision to fully revoke his probation. He contends that the trial court did not have authority to fully revoke his probation because there was insufficient evidence to find that Defendant committed a non-technical violation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found three grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also concluded that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

The Defendant, Clayton Nelvis, was arrested in January 2023, and 1st Out Bonding Company secured his release by executing a bail bond as surety. After the Defendant failed to appear for his initial arraignment, the trial court issued a conditional judgment forfeiting the bail bond. After 180 days, the trial court entered a final judgment of forfeiture when the surety failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. Two weeks later, the surety moved to set aside the final judgment, asserting that it was not liable under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-139(d), which relieves a surety of liability where the defendant is not timely entered into a state or federal fugitive database following a failure to appear. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the request for relief was untimely. On appeal, the surety contends that the statute extinguished its liability and that the trial court had no authority to enter a final forfeiture. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Trameisha L. Farris, of first degree felony murder, and the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. More specifically, she argues that (1) the evidence is legally insufficient to prove that a robbery occurred; and (2) even assuming that a robbery occurred, the State failed to prove that she participated in that crime. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree with the Defendant and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff homeowners’ association filed this lawsuit against certain defendant homeowners who owned homes within its subdivision, seeking to enjoin the homeowners from using their residences as short-term rentals.  After discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment that focused on interpretation of the association’s restrictive covenants with respect to short-term rental properties.  Following a hearing on the competing motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant homeowners and concomitantly denied the association’s motion.  The trial court concluded that the language of the restrictive covenants was ambiguous as to short-term rentals and therefore unenforceable to enjoin the homeowners from using their residences as short-term rental properties.  The association has appealed.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Plaintiffs in this case, who live in the Dominican Republic, were allegedly injured by toxic herbicides used in the sugar cane industry. Following the Plaintiffs’ filing of a lawsuit against the Defendant, a Tennessee corporation, pursuant to the Tennessee Products Liability Act, the Defendant moved to dismiss the case on several grounds. Although the trial court rejected the viability of a number of these defenses asserted by the Defendant at the motion to dismiss stage, the trial court concluded that the case should be dismissed on the basis that “the TPLA does not have extraterritorial application.” The trial court also opined that, “even if a case were to proceed in Tennessee, the applicable law would be the law of the Dominican Republic” but noted that the Plaintiffs “have only set forth a specific claim under the TPLA.” For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the case.

The primary question in this case is whether the trial court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ action on the basis of extraterritoriality. In answering that question, the trial court ruled that because no Tennessee law was on point to address the issue, federal law provided an appropriate framework to resolve the dispute. Under that framework, a court is tasked with answering two questions. First, “whether the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted—that is, whether the statute gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325, 337 (2016). If the statute does not give a clear indication of extraterritoriality, all is not lost, however, so long as there can be a domestic application of the statute.

The Defendant, James Brent Wall, pled guilty to the sale of a controlled substance and two counts of TennCare fraud. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence, which it suspended to probation. The State later alleged that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation by refusing to submit to drug screening, failing to pay restitution, and absconding from supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the suspended sentences and ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation because the court clerk retired the case, recalled the violation warrants, and issued an alias capias. Upon our review, we agree. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the proceedings.

Defendant, Christopher Kenn Baker, pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape for which he received a sentence of two years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Monroe County jury found the Defendant, Russell Matthew Morgan, guilty of solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape and solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means. On appeal, the Defendant raises three issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means; (2) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-528 prohibits solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Bobby V. Summers, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis as untimely. Following our review of the entire record, briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Defendant, Michael Joe Cunningham, pled guilty in two separate cases to one count of making a false report and one count possession of twenty-six grams or more of methamphetamine. He received an effective fourteen-year community corrections sentence that was later transferred to probation. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation based on Defendant’s arrest for new offenses, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his probation rather than ordering treatment for his drug addiction. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Daniel J. Dreaden, for three counts of rape. On the State’s motion, the trial court dismissed Count 3. Defendant waived a jury trial, and following a bench trial, Defendant was convicted on the remaining two counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total effective sentence of eight years, with ten months to serve and the balance to be supervised on probation. Defendant appeals his convictions, asserting 1) that his confrontation right was violated when the trial court prohibited him from cross-examining the victim, Defendant’s then-wife, about her extra-marital affair to establish her motive for the allegations of rape; and 2) that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Defendant raped the victim. We affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand for entry of a judgment form in Count 3 to reflect dismissal of that count.

In January 2019, the Petitioner, James David Duncan, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve ten years and placed him on supervised probation. In January 2020, the trial court revoked the Petitioner’s probation sentence. On appeal, this court affirmed the revocation. State v. Duncan, No. E2020-00827-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 3403152, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2021), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2021). In December 2021, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief that was amended with the assistance of counsel in July 2023. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Tylar Scott Johnson, of four counts of rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty-six years in confinement at a one hundred-percent service rate. On appeal, the Defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, that improper argument by the State affected the verdict, and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm.

This appeal concerns counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract, violation of the Prompt Pay Act of 1991, and enforcement of a lien. The counter-plaintiff, C4 Sourcing Solutions, LLC, alleged that a third-party defendant, Capital City Construction, LLC, breached its agreement to purchase 171 custom-fabricated steel containers for use in an apartment complex. C4 also sought to enforce a lien against the complex property, which was owned by the plaintiff, 83 Freight, LLC. After a trial, the jury found Capital City breached its contract with C4 and awarded $866,000 in compensatory damages. And after a post-trial hearing, the court granted C4’s request to collect on its lien. Capital City and 83 Freight raise numerous issues on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and modify in part.