APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The Defendant, Kesean Dewayne Hall, appeals his jury convictions for second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and criminal trespass. For these convictions, he received an effective thirty-five-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the denial of his motion to sever the separate shooting episodes; (2) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence; (3) the admission of video footage showing the Defendant trespassing on the housing development’s property; and (4) the admission of “video evidence related to Crime Scene 3.” He also raises a claim of cumulative error and a challenge to his sentence. Following our review, we conclude that due to inadequacies in the Defendant’s appellate brief, all of his issues are waived save sufficiency of the evidence. First, relative to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s criminal trespass conviction, and that conviction must be reversed and dismissed. Next, the evidence’s being sufficient to support the Defendant’s remaining convictions for second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, those convictions are affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Rutherford County jury found Defendant, Lavondas C. Nelson, guilty of two counts of sale of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (Counts 1 and 2), and sale of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine (Count 3). The trial court sentenced him to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to establish that he sold cocaine within a school zone, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on entrapment, and his sentence is excessive. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of revised judgments in Counts 1 and 2 that reflect the proper release eligibility for those offenses.

The Petitioner, Patrick Marshall, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. Based on our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

The Petitioner, Nicholas D. Brooks, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions for two counts of first degree felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Antonio Turley, of attempted first degree murder, attempted first degree murder with serious bodily injury, and reckless endangerment with a dangerous weapon. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the admission of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence. He also alleges prosecutorial misconduct. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

For events in 2001, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Nakomis Jones, of murder, kidnapping, and gun related charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life in prison plus thirty-eight years. The Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his convictions, as well as filed for post-conviction relief, Federal habeas corpus relief, and motions to reopen the denial of relief in each instance. As relevant here, in 2022, the Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021. He sought fingerprint analysis of the palm print and a handgun collected during the investigation. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Chancery Court for Knox County (the “Trial Court”) granted the motion for partial summary judgment filed by Haren Construction Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), concluding that Olen Ford d/b/a Olen Ford Masonry and Construction (“Defendant”) had breached his contract with Plaintiff. The Trial Court awarded a judgment to Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $64,971.40. Defendant has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the Trial Court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Adrian Moore, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received an effective sentence of forty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions of second degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Carl Franklin Pendergrast, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions for four counts of sale of methamphetamine less than .5 grams, two counts of sale of hydrocodone, one count of sale of cocaine less than .5 grams, and one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine less than .5 grams, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-six years’ incarceration. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his guilty pleas were the product of coercion and, therefore, not voluntarily entered. Following a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

A tenant sued its landlord for allegedly breaching the parties’ lease agreement. The tenant,
however, failed to comply with the parties’ discovery schedule. After conferring, the
parties established a new discovery deadline, agreed that failure to meet the deadline would
result in dismissal with prejudice, and filed an agreed order to that effect, which was
approved by the trial court. The landlord asserted that the tenant failed to meet the new
deadline and sought dismissal with prejudice. A hearing was scheduled. Before the
hearing, the tenant filed a notice nonsuiting the case, and the trial court granted the tenant
a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The landlord filed a motion to alter or amend,
arguing the dismissal should have been with prejudice. The trial court denied that motion.
The landlord appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The trial court dismissed Appellant’s lawsuit for failure to comply with discovery. Tenn.
R. Civ. P. 37.02(C) and 41.02(1). Because Appellant’s brief fails to comply with the
requirements of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of
Appeals Rule 6, we do not reach Appellant’s issues and dismiss the appeal.

Petitioner, Jeffrey Allen Judkins, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This case concerns whether a parcel of real property is subject to certain restrictions contained in a previously recorded declaration of restrictive covenants. In the proceedings below, the trial court dismissed a homeowner’s association’s lawsuit which sought to enforce the declaration’s architectural review restrictions against the owners of the property. Upon review, we determine that the declaration did not expressly include the property at issue, nor was the property validly made subject to the restrictions within the declaration. Additionally, we reject the homeowner’s association’s arguments that the property was restricted to the terms of the declaration by way of an implied negative reciprocal easement or by waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Appellant filed this accelerated interlocutory appeal under Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Because the trial court has not entered an order on Appellant’s motion for recusal, there is no order for this Court to review. Appeal dismissed.

Michael Robert Quinn (“Defendant”) appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court
convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver more than .5 grams of
methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public elementary school, possession of drug
paraphernalia, driving on a suspended license, and violation of the financial responsibility
law, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-five years’ incarceration.
Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court should have dismissed the presentment based
upon the denial of his right to a preliminary hearing; (2) the trial court erred by denying
Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle; (3) the
trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from two
searches of his cell phone; (4) the failure to make a return on the arrest warrant invalidated
the warrant, resulting in a warrantless search and seizure of Defendant in violation of his
Fourth Amendment rights; (5) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s
pro se request for a continuance of his trial; (6) the trial court erroneously admitted text
messages found on the cell phone in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7)
the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (8) the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing a sentence of twenty-five years with a one hundred percent release
eligibility. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Christopher Joseph Riley, was convicted by a jury of felony murder by aggravated child abuse (count one), felony murder by aggravated child neglect (count two), two counts of aggravated child abuse (counts three and five), reckless endangerment (count four), aggravated child neglect (count six), and two counts of child abuse (counts seven and eight). Defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of life imprisonment plus forty-eight years. On appeal, Defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to require the State to make an election of offenses at the close of the proof, and that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father based on the finding of multiple grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The trial court’s finding of a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children is vacated for lack of sufficient findings of fact. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order, including both the finding of four grounds of termination against each parent and the finding that termination is in the children’s best interests.

James Kevin Pardue, Defendant, was charged via presentment with one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, and one count of home improvement fraud. After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor theft in count 1 and home improvement fraud in count 2. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of six years on probation and ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution at the rate of $600 per month as a condition of his probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for home improvement fraud. Defendant does not challenge his conviction for misdemeanor theft. After a review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Defendant that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for home improvement fraud. As a result, Defendant’s conviction for home improvement fraud is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for any further proceedings which may be necessary.

This case involves a petition for judicial review filed pursuant to the Tennessee Public
Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503, et seq., after the Shelby County Sheriff and the
District Attorney General denied a journalist’s request to inspect surveillance video from
inside a jail facility. The chancery court denied the petition. The journalist appeals. We
affirm.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one of her children. The trial court found seven grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to support; persistent conditions; severe child abuse; imprisonment for more than two years; failure to visit; failure to manifest an ability or willingness to assume custody; and a risk of substantial harm. The trial court also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest and terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother raises procedural and substantive challenges to the trial court’s best interest determination but does not challenge the grounds for termination. Conducting a Carrington review, we conclude the trial court erred in finding some of the aforementioned grounds for termination. Nevertheless, because clear and convincing evidence supports at least one of termination grounds and the conclusion that termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights.

After seven years of marriage, a wife filed a complaint for divorce against her husband. The primary issues before the trial court pertained to the classification of the marital residence and custody of the parties’ child. After a hearing on those issues, the trial court determined that the marital residence had once been the husband’s separate property but had transmuted into marital property. The court then ordered the property sold and the proceeds distributed equally between the parties. Regarding custody, the court designated the wife as primary residential parent and severely restricted the husband’s parenting time. Discerning that the trial court erred in its valuation of the marital residence, we modify the court’s order to reflect the amount submitted by the husband. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
10B from a circuit court judge’s denial of a motion to recuse. The plaintiffs moved for
recusal based primarily on an alleged attorney-client relationship between the judge and
counsel for the defendants. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to recuse.

The Defendant, Joshua Moore, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder. On
appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction,
specifically regarding whether he acted with premeditation. Additionally, he argues that
the trial court erred by admitting a responding police officer’s body camera (“bodycam”)
footage, contending that the recording was overly prejudicial in violation of Tennessee
Rule of Evidence 403. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Katelyn Taylor, pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder in exchange for concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, and that her guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily. After appointing counsel and holding an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, which Petitioner appealed. After review, we conclude that Petitioner failed to prepare a sufficient brief in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b), therefore, her issues are waived. Additionally, after our review of the record, we conclude Petitioner’s claims are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.