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.

This is the second appeal in this healthcare liability matter. The plaintiff first appealed from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant physician. This court reversed that judgment in 2020. Upon remand, a trial before a jury resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff again appeals. We affirm.

In this action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs have appealed in companion appeals. 1 Upon our review, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remand for further proceedings. We deny the plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution case at the summary judgment stage on the basis that she had failed to establish an element of the cause of action. Like the trial court, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to show that the nolle prosequi resolution of the underlying criminal matter constituted a favorable termination. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

The Defendant, Gerald Tyshawn Henry, was convicted by a Knox County jury of second
degree murder and various other gun-related crimes, for which he received an effective
sentence of fifty years in confinement. In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our
review is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction of second
degree murder. Upon our review, we affirm.

The petitioner, Brandon Holliday, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Charles Wilson, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of one count of second-degree murder and one count of facilitation of attempted simple robbery for which he received a sentence of twenty-three years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Quadarius Devonta Bufford, appeals from the Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree felony murder, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Petitioner alleges that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and his request for funds for a medical expert. He also seeks relief due to the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s multiple deficiencies of performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Clifford Lamar Clark, III, appeals from the Henderson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter into the plea agreement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

More than thirty days after denying a motion to compel arbitration, the trial court granted an application for permission to appeal the denial under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. Because an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, we conclude the appeal was untimely.

Because no final order has been entered in the underlying trial court proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The Defendant, Carlos Monalito Clark, a career offender, was indicted for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and vandalism under $1000, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to aggravated burglary and received a Range III sentence of ten years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The vandalism charge was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues he is entitled to de novo review or a new sentencing hearing because the trial court failed to consider three statutory sentencing factors, failed to consider the purposes and principles of the sentencing act, and failed to consider his request for community corrections. Upon review, we affirm.

This cause came before the court upon the application of the Defendant, pro se, seeking an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. More specifically, the Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s October 30, 2025, order directing her to undergo a mental health evaluation to determine her competency to stand trial and her mental state at the time of the charged offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-7- 301(a). The Defendant also requests a stay of mental health evaluation proceedings.

In 2006, the Defendant, Joshua Lee Shaw, pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a Schedule II substance with intent to deliver, a Class C felony, and simple possession of a Schedule VI substance, a Class A misdemeanor.  The trial court sentenced him to four years of supervised probation.  He violated his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana.  The trial court ordered the Defendant’s punishment for the violation to be for “time served” and returned him to probation.  The Defendant successfully completed the remainder of his probation.  In 2024, the Defendant filed a petition to expunge his record of his two offenses pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101(k).  After a hearing, the trial court declined his request. The Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred.  We conclude that the Defendant does not meet the plain language requirements of an “eligible petitioner” in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101(k), and thus we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Kerion Dawson, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to mitigated statutory rape, a Class E felony, and received a two-year sentence to be served as sixty days in confinement and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Petitioner, Christopher Alan Hauser, and four co-defendants were convicted of multiple counts of filing a lien without a reasonable basis and multiple counts of forgery.  On direct appeal, we affirmed Petitioner’s convictions.  State v. Lyons, No. M2019-01946-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 1083703, at *23, perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Crim. App. March 22, 2021).  The Tennessee Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the convictions.  State v. Lyons, 669 S.W.3d 775, 779-80 (Tenn. 2023).  Petitioner, a non-lawyer, filed a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of himself and his co-defendants.  The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing as untimely.  Petitioner appealed on behalf of himself and on behalf of his co-defendants.   After review, we disregard claims alleged by Petitioner for the co-defendants and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court as to Petitioner.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her five children. The juvenile court found three grounds for termination and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests based on clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Roosevelt Morris, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his convictions for two counts of attempted first degree murder and his effective forty-seven-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition because his sentence was imposed in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004). We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

A high school student suffered a serious injury when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye. The injured student sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable. The circuit court granted the School System’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the student’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant worked as a cashier for the Shelby County Trustee’s Office and was terminated after she experienced a cash shortage and attempted to force balance. The Civil Service Merit Board conducted a review hearing and upheld the termination. The appellant sought judicial review in the chancery court, which likewise upheld the termination. The appellant filed this appeal claiming that her procedural due process rights were violated, her termination was not in accordance with the policies and procedures of Shelby County, and that the Civil Service Merit Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellees filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and an injunction, pursuant to the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-14-101, et seq. (“the TVWA”), against a former employee, the appellant.  The appellees alleged, inter alia, that the appellant was committing unlawful violence at the workplace by stalking the corporation, the chief executive officer (“CEO”), and the employees.  The alleged stalking consisted mostly of public Facebook posts by the appellant.  The Chancery Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”) granted the appellees a temporary restraining order prior to the hearing on the injunction.  After the hearing, the Trial Court found that the appellant had committed unlawful violence at the workplace via stalking based upon the appellant’s persistent Facebook posts about the appellees and granted the appellees an injunction against the appellant.  The Trial Court also found the appellant in contempt for eleven violations of the temporary restraining order.  The Trial Court awarded the appellees their attorney’s fees. This appeal ensued.  Based upon our review, we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment.

This appeal involves an employee's claim for workers' compensation benefits relating to her alleged contraction of the COVID-19 virus at work.  The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51.  We affirm the judgment of the Appeals Board and adopt its opinion as set forth in the attached Appendix.

The Defendant, Paul Rogers, pled guilty to a nine-count information charging aggravated assault, evading arrest, and reckless endangerment, among other offenses. As part of the plea, the parties agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to an effective term of eight years, with the trial court determining the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and imposed a sentence of full confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted an alternative sentence. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This matter concerns criminal contempt and an order of protection. Jolene Renee (Scholl) Bauer (“Wife”) and Michael Ray Scholl (“Husband”) divorced in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). Husband was ordered not to go around Wife’s work or residence. Wife later filed a motion for criminal contempt against Husband alleging that he went around her residence, the parties’ former marital residence, in violation of the court’s order. She also sought an order of protection, citing Husband’s history of violence toward her. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Wife an order of protection. The Trial Court found Husband guilty on two counts of criminal contempt for texting Wife’s neighbor to ask what was happening with Wife and the house. Husband appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s granting Wife an order of protection. However, we find that Husband did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him and that the evidence is insufficient to support the criminal contempt findings by the Trial Court of Husband’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse the findings of criminal contempt against Husband. We therefore affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Defendant, Terrence Sanders, appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original sentence in confinement, arguing that there was insufficient proof that his new arrest for domestic assault constituted a non-technical violation of his probation and that the trial court erred by failing to make appropriate findings in support of its decisions. We agree that the trial court failed to make adequate findings in support of its decisions to revoke the Defendant’s probation and order execution of the original judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the trial court to make additional findings, in accordance with State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022), regarding whether the State proved a non-technical violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence and, if so, the appropriate consequence to be imposed.