APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and this matter must be dismissed.

The defendant, Bradley Keith Cathey, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s finding of criminal contempt for failing to appear at a scheduled attorney setting.  The trial court found the defendant in direct contempt of court and summarily sentenced him to ten days incarceration.  On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him in summary contempt.  Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and vacated. The cause is remanded for a hearing in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b).

The Defendant, Baby Dashea Nix, appeals as of right from the Sumner County Criminal Court’s partial revocation of her effective twelve-year community corrections sentence.The Defendant contends that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that a violation of the conditions of her sentence occurred and that, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion.  The Defendant also submits that she was not afforded due process because counsel failed to present the testimony of the Defendant’s mother at the revocation hearing.  Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s partial revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentence.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal arises from the trial court's denial of a motion for recusal filed by a father in a custody proceeding. After carefully reviewing the trial court's ruling pursuant to the de novo standard of review required under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying the motion for recusal.

The defendant, Lawrence Taylor III, aka “Pig,” was indicted for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The defendant argues on appeal that the guilty verdict is not supported by the evidence and the trial court improperly admitted a prior written statement of an unavailable witness into evidence. The State argues the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the trial court properly allowed the witness's prior statement to be read into evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Brooke Lee Whitaker, is appealing the trial court’s order dismissing her motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1.  The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.  Said motion is hereby granted.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a premises liability action in which the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that he sustained injury while using the restroom in a grocery store operated by the defendant. The court denied the defendant’s request for a directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury, which awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages. Following the denial of post-trial motions, the court approved the verdict but reduced the award to conform to the amount of damages pled. The defendant appeals, claiming the reduced award is not supported by material evidence. We affirm.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Jerry Williams, of aggravated burglary and vandalism over $10,000, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years of supervised probation for each count. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it limited his cross-examination of the victim and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

This action involves a dispute between the holders of conflicting claims to the ownership of a residential lot in Chattanooga. The City sold the property at a delinquent tax sale. Unbeknownst to those involved in the tax sale, the property had earlier been sold at a foreclosure sale conducted by the holder of a deed of trust on the property. After a dispute arose between Andrea Scott, who had bought the property from a successor to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, and Carlton J. Ditto, who bought the property at the tax sale, Scott filed this action against Ditto and others to quiet title to the property. Ditto filed a counterclaim. He also filed a cross-claim against several of the defendants. The trial court granted Scott summary judgment based on its determination that she was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the tax sale to Ditto and that she had recorded her deed first. The trial court dismissed Ditto’s cross-claim. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-claim against the lender and others, because Ditto does not have standing to challenge the foreclosure sale. With respect to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Scott, we hold that the evidence presented by Ditto in opposition to summary judgment establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Scott had notice of Ditto’s interest in the property prior to her purchase of that property. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children.

A Gibson County jury found the Defendant, Thomas R. Boykin, guilty of two counts of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to thirty-five years imprisonment for each count to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of seventy years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and his sentence is excessive. After review, we dismiss this appeal because the Defendant failed to timely file a notice of appeal.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children.

In this post-divorce matter, the parties have been litigating for several years regarding issues of co-parenting time, child support, and contempt. In 2013, the trial court reduced the father’s child support obligation based upon its finding that a significant variance existed between the prior child support amount and the new amount calculated utilizing the father’s income. The trial court ordered that such modification would begin as of May 2012, when the State of Tennessee filed a petition seeking modification on the father’s behalf. The father attempted to file an appeal of this matter in 2013, but the appeal was dismissed due to lack of a final order. Following remand, the trial court reviewed and adjusted the child support modification based upon demonstration of the father’s income from all sources, including an inheritance he received from a relative. A final order was entered July 27, 2015. The father has appealed the trial court’s judgment. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A Lawrence County jury found the Defendant, Rachel Kay Bond, guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction.  The Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence incriminating text messages allegedly sent by the Defendant.  After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Frederick E. Braxton, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 convictions for selling less than 0.5 gram of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, evading arrest, and criminal impersonation and his effective fifteen-year sentence.  The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Jerry Floyd, was arrested without a warrant for driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and several other traffic offenses not relevant to this review. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, -402(a)(3)(A). The Defendant consented to a bench trial in Sullivan County General Sessions Court and was found guilty of DUI, third offense. The Defendant then appealed to the Sullivan County Criminal Court. Following a bench trial, the Defendant was again found guilty of DUI, third offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty nine-days with 120 days to be served in confinement. The Defendant now appeals to this court, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we conclude that the affidavit of complaint filed after the Defendant’s arrest was void and that no valid arrest warrant was issued in this case. Therefore, prosecution was never commenced in this matter within the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Johnny Malcom Vinson, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony.  See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014), 39-13-102 (2014) (amended 2015); 39-17-1324 (2014).  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years for attempted second degree murder, fifteen years for aggravated assault, and ten years for aggravated assault.  The court also sentenced the Defendant to ten years for the firearm violation and ordered consecutive service, for an effective thirty-four-year sentence.  The court further ordered the effective sentence in the present case to be served consecutively to a ten-year sentence in another case, for an overall effective forty-four-year sentence.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.  We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a breach of contract case related to a commercial property located in Arkansas. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, equitable estoppel, and promissory estoppel. Following a hearing on Defendants‘ motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court dismissed all of the claims except for an alleged breach of contract by Defendant Hi-Speed, Inc. After a bench trial on this remaining claim, the trial court determined that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. We affirm.

This is a saving statute case, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-1-105. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s third product-liability case, which was filed within one year of the dismissal of her second lawsuit, but more than one year after the entry of the initial nonsuit in Appellant’s first lawsuit. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Joseph Floyd, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his DUI and reckless driving convictions, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition based on a lack of jurisdiction because his probation had expired. The State concedes that the court erroneously dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition.

Landowner filed an action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County (“Metro”) on theories of inverse condemnation, detrimental reliance, and negligence to recover for damages to his home which occurred as a result of landslides on his property. Following trial, the court entered judgment in Metro’s favor on all claims. On appeal, landowner contends that the evidence preponderates against the court’s findings of fact as to the cause of the landslides and the finding that Metro’s expert witness was credible; that the court erred as a matter of law in holding that Metro’s actions were not purposeful or intentional for the purposes of an inverse condemnation claim; and that the court erred in not crediting his testimony in the valuation of his property. Metro asks this court to reverse the trial court’s determination that it owns the portion of land adjacent to landowner’s property in fee simple. We reverse the determination that Metro owns the land adjacent to the landowner’s property; in all other respects we affirm the judgment.    

A boat repairman sued boat owners in general sessions court for a portion of the cost to repair their boat. The repairman was awarded less than he sought and appealed the case to the circuit court. The circuit court awarded the same amount to the repairman, and the repairman appealed the judgment to this Court. The record contains a statement of evidence, but it contains no transcript of the proceedings or any exhibits. We are unable to conduct a meaningful review based on the record in this case and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The pro se petitioner, Cory O’Brien Johnson, alias Deshun Marshay Gibbs, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court violated his due process rights by not holding an evidentiary hearing to consider whether he was afforded appropriate pretrial jail credits. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for habeas corpus relief.

This lawsuit was brought by two associations of commercial fishermen challenging proclamations enacted by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission (“TWRC”) that affect, among other matters, the species and sizes of fish that may be harvested, the types of equipment that may be used, the permissible locations for fishing, and fishing seasons. On appeal, the fishermen argue that the proclamations are invalid because the actions of the TWRC violated the Open Meetings Act and procedural due process, because the proclamations violate substantive due process, and because one of the commissioners had an impermissible conflict of interest. We find no merit to the fishermen’s arguments and, therefore, affirm the decision of the trial court.  

The pro se petitioner, James W. Clark, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, petition for writ of habeas corpus, and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion for correction of an illegal sentence. We affirm the summary dismissal of the petitions and motions pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.