APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal concerns a petition to access public records filed against a private entity. David L. Hudson, Jr. (“Hudson”) and Public.Resource.Org filed a petition against Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a division of LexisNexis Group (“Lexis”), in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act (“the TPRA”) seeking access to and a copy of the complete and current electronic version of the Tennessee Code Annotated (“the TCA.”).1 The Tennessee Code Commission (“the Commission”) intervened on Lexis’s side in part to protect the state’s alleged copyright interest in the TCA. The Trial Court held that the TCA is exempt from disclosure because Tennessee law provides a separate avenue for publication of the TCA. In addition to its dispositive ruling, the Trial Court held that Lexis operates as the functional equivalent of a governmental entity, and that the TCA is disqualified from copyright protection. Hudson appeals. Lexis and the Commission raise issues as well. We hold, inter alia, that Lexis is a private company performing specific services for the state on a contractual basis. It has not assumed responsibility for public functions to such an extent as to become the functional equivalent of a governmental entity. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment in that respect. Otherwise, we affirm.

The Appellant, Michael Anthony Tharpe, was convicted at a bench trial of burglary of a
vehicle, retaliation for past action, theft of property, assault of an officer, evading arrest,
and coercion of a witness. In this consolidated appeal, he challenges: (1) the legal
sufficiency of the evidence supporting four of his convictions; and (2) the trial court’s
imposition of partial consecutive sentences. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of
the trial court.

I would also affirm the dismissal of the petition for access to public records and to obtain judicial review of denial of access. But I would do so only “on the threshold issue” identified by the trial court. The trial court framed the issue as “whether Tennessee Code Annotated constitutes a document required for public access under the Public Records Act.” On that threshold issue, I reach the same conclusion as the trial court and the majority. State law otherwise provides for access to Tennessee Code Annotated, so Tennessee Code Annotated is not a “state record” subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503(a)(2)(A) (Supp. 2023) (making all state records “open for personal inspection by any citizen of this state . . . unless otherwise provided by state law”); see also Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 485 S.W.3d 857, 865 (Tenn. 2016) (recognizing Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7- 503(a)(2)(A) as “a general exception to the Public Records Act, based on state law”). The trial court recognized that resolving the threshold issue was “dispositive, making it unnecessary to decide the other two defenses asserted.” Yet, “in the interest of avoiding a time-consuming and expensive remand” in the event of a reversal on the threshold issue, it also ruled on the other defenses.

This case involves a protracted and contentious child support action, which began when
the State of Tennessee, acting on behalf of the mother, filed a petition for child support in
2005 against the father for financial support of the parties’ minor son. Over the years, the
parties filed numerous petitions to modify the child support amount, petitions for contempt
for failure to pay medical and other expenses, petitions for changes in visitation for the
child, objections to the appointment of magistrates by the juvenile court judge, and requests
to rehear many of the motions and petitions. The trial court addressed each of these
motions and pleadings as they were filed. On September 1, 2020, a magistrate judge
entered an order ruling on all of the mother’s outstanding motions for rehearing in the case
but reserved the mother’s outstanding petition for contempt against the father for failure to
pay the child’s medical and dental expenses and the mother’s petition for rehearing of a
motion to modify child support. Those matters were set for hearing on November 24, 2020,
before a special judge. At that time, the Tennessee Supreme Court had issued a standing
order that all in-person hearings and trials were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
therefore, the November 24, 2020 hearing was set to be heard remotely via “Zoom”
technology. The mother objected to the virtual hearing on grounds that the notice was
insufficient and accordingly sought a stay of the pending matters via a motion filed on
November 23, 2020. Neither party appeared for the Zoom hearing on November 24, 2020,
and the special judge dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. The mother then filed
a motion for rehearing and a motion to alter or amend the judgment, both of which were
heard and denied by the special judge. The mother has appealed the trial court’s dismissal
of the child support action. The father has not appeared or filed a responsive brief. Upon
thorough review of the record and consideration of the issues raised by the mother on
appeal, we affirm the decisions of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a petition to modify alimony. Gerald Edward Baker (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) against his ex-wife Kim Covarrubias (“Respondent”) seeking to modify his alimony obligation as a result of a massive post-retirement drop in his income. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order declining to modify Petitioner’s alimony obligation despite having found that Petitioner was credible; that his decision to retire was objectively reasonable; and that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred. Petitioner appeals. We find, inter alia, that the Trial Court erred by failing to account for Petitioner’s ability to pay in light of all of his expenses. The Trial Court’s decision lacked a factual basis properly supported by evidence in the record; was not based on the most appropriate legal principles applicable to the decision; and was not within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions. Thus, the Trial Court abused its discretion. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for the Trial Court to modify Petitioner’s alimony obligation.

A mother sought to terminate the parental rights of her child’s father pursuant to the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support.  At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the trial court concluded that the mother failed to prove any termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed her termination petition.  Determining that the mother lacked standing to seek termination of the father’s parental rights pursuant to those grounds, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the termination petition.

In this matter, the petitioner seeks a reversal of the trial court’s decision not to recuse itself. Due to the failure of the petitioner to meet the mandatory requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, § 2.03, this appeal is dismissed and the trial court’s decision is affirmed.

The defendant, Corey Brown, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of especially
aggravated robbery for which he received a sentence of twenty-one years in prison. On
appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support his conviction and that the trial judge failed to execute its responsibility as
thirteenth juror. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

The Defendant, Chandler Gant, pled guilty in the Robertson County Circuit Court to assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the trial court to 11 months, 29 days in the county jail, with 30 days to serve on consecutive weekends and the remainder of the time on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a sentence of partial confinement. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Morrieo Allen, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief,
arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of
counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Plaintiff brought suit against her former employer, alleging sexual harassment by her supervisor and claiming constructive discharge. The Employer moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in the Plaintiff’s employment agreement. The Plaintiff responded by invoking the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which the trial court concluded invalidates the mandatory arbitration provision. We reverse the trial court’s decision because the harassment of the Plaintiff and her constructive discharge occurred prior to the effective date of the Act.

The Defendant, Jennifer Michelle Childs, was indicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and filed motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment. The trial court held a hearing, ruled that the Defendant’s warrantless arrest was illegal, and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals the dismissal, arguing that the remedy for an illegal arrest is suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the State. Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment is reversed, the indictment is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The parents of a child brought suit to personally recover for negligent infliction of
emotional distress in relation to sexual abuse of their child that had been perpetrated by the
defendant church’s former paid volunteer coordinator. The church filed a motion to
dismiss the parents’ claims and argued that the parents’ attempt to recover for negligent
infliction of emotional distress was not legally cognizable because the parents did not
perceive any injury-producing event. The trial court countenanced this position and
entered an order dismissing the parents’ claims. The parents then filed a motion seeking
relief from the dismissal order and, alternatively, to amend their complaint. The trial court
ultimately denied the parents’ motion, following which the present appeal ensued. For the
reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this ongoing divorce litigation, the father filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial
court’s denial of his motions to recuse the trial judge. Having reviewed father’s petition
under the required de novo standard, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

This post-divorce action concerns the trial court’s order finding the husband in civil
contempt based on his failure to pay alimony to the wife and to maintain security for his
alimony obligation as ordered. The trial court entered an order on April 29, 2022, finding
the husband in contempt and assigning a punishment. Husband did not file a notice of
appeal, or a specified motion tolling the time for filing a notice of appeal pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.01, within thirty days of entry of the contempt
order. As such, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the husband’s
issues concerning interpretation or alteration of the April 29, 2022 contempt order as
sought in his untimely motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 52.02
and 59.04. To the extent that the trial court denied relief to the husband pursuant to his
motion based on Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, we find no abuse of discretion
and affirm that ruling. We award to the wife her reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on
appeal, and we remand this issue to the trial court for determination of a reasonable
amount of attorney’s fees incurred by the wife in defending against the husband’s appeal.

The Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Lee Goodwin, was convicted by a Maury County Circuit Court jury of felony murder committed in the perpetration of aggravated child neglect, and the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to police; (3) the aggravated child neglect statute violates due process with its vagueness; (4) the trial court violated his right to a fair trial when it overruled the defense objection and allowed the State to present evidence that the medical examiner in this case lost his medical license; (5) the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s hearsay objection to his questioning of an investigator about a statement that a witness allegedly made to him; (6) the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial when an investigator testified about a domestic violence incident between the Defendant and the victim’s mother; and (7) that a single prosecution for felony murder predicated on both aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect violates double jeopardy. ¹ After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Timothy Elliott1 Davis, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence
of an intoxicant (“DUI”) and driving under the influence of an intoxicant with a blood
alcohol concentration (“BAC”) greater than 0.8 (“DUI per se”). Defendant pled guilty to
DUI, third offense following the jury verdict on the first two counts. The trial court
sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended to supervised
probation upon service of seven months in the county jail. On appeal, Defendant argues
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol
test and that the evidence is insufficient to support the guilty verdict. Following our review
of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court but remand for correction of the judgment forms consistent with this opinion.

Defendant, Terrance Terrell King, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion seeking resentencing for a drug-related conviction under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h). Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion, and the State contends this court does not have jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal. Defendant rejects the State’s assertion. After reviewing the applicable law and the parties’ arguments, we conclude Defendant does not have an appeal as of right available to him, and the appeal is therefore dismissed

The Petitioner, Douglas Eugene Horton, appeals from the Henderson County Circuit
Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2018 convictions for two
counts of possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, four counts of possession
of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, and
four counts of facilitation of possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the
commission of a dangerous felony, for which he is serving an effective fifteen-year
sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by
denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel allegations for counsel’s (1) failure
to obtain adequate discovery, (2) failure to challenge the search warrant resulting in the
Petitioner’s arrest, (3) failure to subpoena the Petitioner’s daughter and his girlfriend as
witnesses at the trial, (4) failure to play a body camera recording purporting to show
officer misconduct, and (5) cumulative errors during the trial. We affirm the judgment of
the post-conviction court.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that three grounds for termination existed as to the mother: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) persistent conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The juvenile court also found that the termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm.

A Hamilton County jury convicted Defendant, Tamarion Terrell Johnson, of second degree
murder and aggravated assault in the shooting death of the victim, Shawnquell Stanfield.
The trial court merged the assault conviction into the murder conviction. Defendant argues
on appeal that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight and that the evidence
was insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction. We affirm the judgments
of the trial court.

The Defendant, Adam Janes, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Specifically, the Defendant argues that: (1) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) he entered into his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily; (3) the assistant district attorney was prejudiced against him; (4) he was entitled to concurrent sentences; (5) he was not given the opportunity of rehabilitation; (6) his sentence was not the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence was imposed; and (7) the State failed to file a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Amanda Helena Rogers, appeals her Maury County Circuit Court jury convictions of facilitation of attempted first degree murder, facilitation of vandalism of property in an amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, and two counts of reckless endangerment for which the trial court imposed an effective term of 10 years and six months to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction of facilitation of attempted first degree murder and that the trial court erred in imposing the sentence. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Martin Walker (“Petitioner”), an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). Petitioner seeks review of the decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“Board”) to deny him parole. He raises numerous challenges to the propriety of the Board’s action and procedures. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Hank Cooley, Jr., appeals from his best interest, guilty-pleaded
convictions for felony evading arrest risking death or injury, driving on a revoked license
(second offense), reckless driving, disobeying a traffic signal, violation of the light law,
speeding, and failure to exercise due care. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-603(b)(3)(B) (2018)
(subsequently amended) (evading arrest), 55-50-504 (2020) (driving on a revoked
license), 55-10-205 (2020) (reckless driving), 55-8-110 (2020) (subsequently amended)
(disobeying a traffic signal), 55-9-402 (2020) (subsequently amended) (violation of light
law), 55-8-152 (2008) (speeding), and 55-8-136 (2020) (failure to exercise due care).
The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twelve years in
confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the court erred by denying alternative
sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.