APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal by a pro se appellant. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief on appeal, we conclude that he waived consideration of any issues on appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Deondre Raymon McClain, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective six-year probationary sentence stemming from his guilty-pleaded convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with the intent to sell. On appeal, he argues that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to support its decision to fully revoke his probation and order him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case began with a March 14, 2024 petition to terminate the parental rights of
Respondent/Appellant Agness M. (“Mother”) filed by Petitioners Benjamin M. (“Father”)
and Kelly M. (together with Father, “Petitioners”) in the Washington County Chancery
Court (“the trial court”). The petition alleged as grounds abandonment by failure to visit
and support, mental incompetence to provide care, and failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to parent.

The Defendant, Renardo Dixon, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and kidnapping, both Class C felonies, in exchange for concurrent sentences of eight years at 30% release eligibility, with the service left to the trial court’s determination. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for probation and ordered that he serve his sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction consecutively to his sentence in a prior case in which his probation had been violated. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Valerie Ann Dollar, was convicted by a Johnson County Criminal Court
jury of first degree felony murder in perpetration of kidnapping, especially aggravated
kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit especially aggravated kidnapping. See T.C.A. §§
39-13-202 (2018) (subsequently amended) (first degree murder), 39-13-305 (2018)
(especially aggravated kidnapping), 39-12-103 (2018) (conspiracy). The trial court
imposed an effective life plus twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends
(1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and (2) that the trial court
erred by excluding evidence of the State’s pretrial offer to dismiss the murder charge. We
affirm the judgments of the criminal court.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. Because the mother did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

This appeal involves claims of breach of contract and employment discrimination filed by a graduate student/teaching assistant at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The plaintiff claimed that he was fired for discriminatory reasons and that the University of Tennessee had breached its employment contract with him. The trial court dismissed the breach of contract claim based on sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the employment discrimination claims by reason of the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A Marion County jury convicted Landon Allen Turner, Defendant, of reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse for the death of Z.H.,[1] Defendant’s girlfriend’s two-year-old son.  He argues on appeal that: (1) the juvenile court erred in transferring his case to circuit court; (2) the State violated its Brady obligations by failing to provide defense counsel with a copy of Defendant’s statements prior to the juvenile transfer hearing; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) his conviction for aggravated child abuse should be barred under the doctrine of “mutually exclusive verdicts”; and (5) his sentence is excessive.  After review, we affirm the judgments.[1] It is the policy of this Court to protect the identities of minor victims by using their initials. 

The Defendant, Landon Hank Black, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of
second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and
received an effective sentence of twenty-five years in confinement. On appeal, the
Defendant contends that the State infringed on his right to remain silent; the trial court
erred by allowing a State witness to give opinion testimony but then prohibiting a defense
witness from doing the same; the trial court erred by allowing a State witness to testify that
she had sex with the Defendant just days after the victim’s death; the State was allowed to
attack the integrity of the defense during the presentation of the evidence; the State’s
closing arguments were improper; the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the
Defendant had a duty to retreat before acting in self-defense; the trial court erred by
refusing to give a modified sequential jury instruction; the trial court incorrectly instructed
the jury on voluntary manslaughter; and the cumulative effect of the errors requires a new
trial. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to two minor children on the grounds of abandonment and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of or financial responsibility for the children. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to abandonment but affirm the trial court’s ruling as to the father’s failure to manifest an ability and willingness. Because we also conclude that terminating the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests, we affirm the trial court’s ultimate ruling.

Defendant, Lamiracle Scott, appeals from her Shelby County conviction for first degree premediated murder, for which she received a life sentence. Defendant contends: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request for a continuance; and (3) that she is entitled to plain error relief due to a juror allegedly sleeping during trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In the first appeal in this case, we reversed the decision of the trial court to award custody of the minor children to Grandparents and remanded for Grandparents to prove substantial harm. While the appeal was pending, Mother and Grandparents filed a joint petition for custody to be returned to Mother. The trial court held a trial on both issues following the remand from this Court. Ultimately, the trial court granted Mother’s petition and entered a parenting plan naming Mother primary residential parent and awarding Father weekend visitation; Grandparents were not awarded any visitation. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

After a tragic motor vehicle accident caused her husband’s death and her minor child’s serious injuries, the plaintiff filed this products liability action against several manufacturers and sellers. We granted the instant interlocutory appeal in which the defendant requests review — based on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Carolyn Coffman, et al. v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., 615 S.W.3d 888 (Tenn. 2021) — of the
trial court’s denial of its motion for relief from unfavorable summary judgment orders. We reverse the trial court.

The Defendant, Nathaniel Isaac Herrick, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal
Court’s probation revocation of his two-year sentence for drug-related convictions. On
appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his
probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jonathan Keith Hughes, Jr., was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of one count of first degree murder, one count of criminally negligent homicide, and three counts of conspiracy to commit murder. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s admission of evidence of his gang affiliation, the trial court’s failure to provide an accomplice instruction to the jury, and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Upon review of the record, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments reflecting the defendant’s convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder under the proper statute. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101, et seq. (“the PPA”). King Construction Group, Inc. (“King”) sued Highlands Residential Services (“HRS”) in the Chancery Court for Putnam County (“the Trial Court”) for violating the PPA. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court ruled in King’s favor, granting an award to King for HRS’s failure to place retained funds in a separate, interest-bearing escrow account as required by the PPA. The Trial Court further awarded King statutory interest and attorney’s fees. HRS appeals, arguing that an amendment to the PPA, which became effective in July 2020 after the parties had entered into their agreement, means that HRS, a public housing agency, did not have to place retainage in an escrow account. We hold that, as HRS first failed to place retained funds in an escrow account before the amendment became effective, the pre-July 2020 version of the PPA applies to this action. We affirm the Trial Court’s award of a penalty to King for HRS’s failure to place retainage in an escrow account. However, we reverse the Trial Court’s award of attorney’s fees to King because the Trial Court made no supporting findings nor is there any evidence of bad faith by HRS. In addition, we vacate the Trial Court in its award of statutory interest to King and remand for the Trial Court to calculate a new award of statutory interest to King at the interest rate specified in the pre-July 2020 version of the PPA. We thus affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and vacate, in part, and this cause is remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

In this appeal, Appellant does not offer any argument as to the trial court’s final order, and among other technical issues, fails to properly cite to her appendix or to the record. Because Appellant has failed to comply with the requirements set out in Rules 27 and 28 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, we dismiss the appeal.

Father, who is serving an eight-year sentence on a rape conviction, appeals the termination of his parental rights. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal involves a complaint against four defendants for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against three of the four defendants. Because the order does not resolve the plaintiff’s claims against all of the defendants, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

Trevale Demarco Davis, Defendant, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s probation revocation of his effective five-year sentence for three counts of aggravated burglary and one count of robbery. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Chad Anthony Turner, entered an open guilty plea to theft of property $250,000 or more, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to sixteen years’ incarceration and ordered to pay $100,000, in restitution to be paid in monthly installments of $700, should he make parole. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by imposing a restitution amount without any significant findings on Defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay and conditioned on the possibility of parole, by ordering a restitution amount which could not be satisfied prior to the end of his sentence, and by denying his request for an alternative sentence. Upon review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court regarding the length and manner of Defendant’s sentence. However, we reverse the trial court’s restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner, Horatio Lewis Rice, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately investigate Petitioner’s mental health issues and that Petitioner lacked the mental capacity to enter into a constitutionally valid plea agreement. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on January 23, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until February 23, 2024, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Petitioner, Shelton Hall, III, appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Christopher A. Maxwell, pleaded guilty to one count of first degree premeditated murder and two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder, and was sentenced to an effective term of life plus twenty years. Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after conducting a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner alleges he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were entered unknowingly and involuntarily. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.