APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In 2014, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Corderro Avant, and a codefendant, of several charges against several victims of a shooting, including one count of first degree premeditated murder; one count of attempted first degree murder resulting in serious bodily injury; nine counts of attempted first degree murder; and eleven counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence plus twenty-one years. The Petitioner appealed and this court affirmed the judgments. State v. Avant, No. W2018-01154-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 3072131, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2020). Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The trial court denied the petition after a hearing on the basis that the statute of limitations had expired. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his petition was timely and should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

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.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. The court found one ground for termination: abandonment by failure to visit. Because the trial court’s order fails to resolve conflicting testimony concerning the father’s visitation with the child, we vacate the judgment and remand for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Defendant, Joseph Ray Daniels, confessed to the beating death of his five-year-old son, Joseph Clyde Daniels III, and was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, first-degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, making a false police report, and tampering with evidence.  He subsequently received an effective sentence of life imprisonment.   In this appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession (1) because the State failed to corroborate his extrajudicial confession under the modified trustworthiness standard outlined in State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014), and (2) because his post-polygraph video recorded statement was obtained by law enforcement through coercive interrogation techniques including an express promise of leniency.  The Defendant also argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to exclude as hearsay utterances by the victim’s three-year-old brother, “Joe dead, Joe dead, Joe dead,” and the response of his aunt, “Yes baby, Joe dead;” and in failing to exclude as not relevant and unfairly prejudicial Facebook messages his wife exchanged with a paramour leading up to the victim’s death.  We affirm.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Zyqiius Quade’ Barnes, of one count of second degree murder and one count of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of seventeen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it included a “defense of a third person” instruction in its jury charge and when it enhanced his sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Davidson County jury found the Defendant, Keiresha Majors, guilty of one count of second degree murder, for which she was sentenced to twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the admission of recordings of a Facebook Live broadcast she recorded shortly after the victim’s murder, the restriction of cross-examination of a witness, and the length of her sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The plaintiff took his car to a body shop for repair. The owner of the body shop, who had obtained title of the vehicle through an unknown means, sold the car to the defendant, CarMax. The plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the body shop and CarMax, seeking the return of his car. The trial court granted summary judgment to CarMax, finding it held valid title as a good faith purchaser for value. Because we find that the undisputed facts do not support a conclusion that CarMax is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jason Collins, was convicted of one count of possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, one count of possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court merged the two methamphetamine convictions and sentenced Petitioner to serve a total effective sentence of twenty years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in confinement. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion for new trial, in failing to seek suppression of drugs and other evidence seized from his home, and in failing to conduct a “complete and accurate” investigation of a defense witness. After review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

Plaintiff was injured after attempting to cross a street outside of a crosswalk and being struck by a city-owned vehicle driven by a city employee. The trial court found that the city was vicariously liable for the employee-driver’s negligence and directly liable for its negligent hiring and retaining of the employee-driver. The trial court ultimately found the plaintiff 10% at fault for her injuries. The city appealed, and this Court reversed, finding that there was no proof of negligent hiring and that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s allocation of fault. Instead, this Court concluded that the plaintiff was at least 50% at fault, barring recovery. The Tennessee Supreme Court vacated the judgment as failing to afford the trial court’s findings of fact appropriate deference, but acknowledged the plaintiff’s failure to appeal the conclusion that the negligent hiring finding was unsupported. On remand, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the matter to the trial court for the re-allocation of fault and calculation of damages.

Petitioner seeks accelerated review of the denial of two motions to recuse the trial judge. After a de novo review, we affirm the denial of both motions.

Appellant filed this petition for recusal appeal without including either the motion to recuse filed in the trial court or the trial court’s order denying the motion to recuse. As such, we dismiss this appeal.

Appellant filed this petition for recusal appeal without including either the motion to recuse filed in the trial court or the trial court’s order denying the motion to recuse. As such, we dismiss this appeal.

This is an appeal from a dispute over a piece of real estate in Shelby County, Tennessee. The property owner executed a quit claim deed transferring ownership of the property to his daughter, who was also his attorney-in-fact, shortly before he died in 2023. After his death, the man’s surviving spouse filed a petition to set the deed aside, claiming that the daughter obtained the deed by undue influence. The trial court held a bench trial and entered an order setting the deed aside. The daughter timely appeals to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Buyers of a residential home brought action against sellers for 1) breach of contract, 2)
negligent misrepresentation, 3) negligence, 4) negligence per se, 5) gross negligence, 6)
residential disclosures violations, and 7) fraud. The claims arise from the discovery of a
sinkhole months after the sale. The sinkhole was not indicated “through the contour lines
on the property’s recorded plat,” see Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-5-212(c) (2015), and the sellers
insist they had no knowledge of a sinkhole on the property. For these reasons, they did not
disclose the existence of the sinkhole on the Tennessee Residential Property Condition
Disclosure form. Nevertheless, the proof at trial established that one of the sellers, Larry
Baskin, while mowing the lawn, discovered a depression in the yard six months prior to
listing the property for sale, which he believed to be caused by rotting roots from a tree that
had been removed years earlier. He filled the depression with two four-by-four, pressuretreated,
rot-resistant posts and topsoil. Because it was near a downspout, he also placed the
plastic bag from the topsoil over the posts, which he covered with more soil and grass. The
property was sold seven months later, during which time Mr. Baskin did not notice the area
“concaving or dipping in any way” even though he mowed regularly over the area with his
500-pound riding mower. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed all claims except the
negligence claim. Significantly, the court dismissed the claim for negligent
misrepresentation because the purchase agreement contained an “as is” clause. However,
the court held that Larry Baskin was liable under the claim for common law negligence,
finding that he “breached the duty of reasonable care by not informing the Buyers of the
existence of the hole prior to their purchase of the Property. The harm resulting from Mr.
Baskin’s breach was damage to the value of the Property.” The court awarded the buyers
compensatory damages of $55,000 for the diminution in value of the property.
Additionally, finding the buyers to be the prevailing parties according to the purchase
agreement, the trial court awarded them attorney’s fees and costs. This appeal followed,
with the sellers challenging Mr. Baskin’s liability under the negligence claim and the
buyers challenging the dismissal of the gross negligence claim. For the reasons explained
below, we affirm the dismissal of the claim for gross negligence; however, we reverse the
finding of Mr. Baskin’s liability based on the claim of negligence because “a seller’s
liability for the failure to disclose such material facts in a real estate transaction is
coextensive with a party’s liability for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.” Fayne
v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162, 177 (Tenn. 2009). Because we have affirmed the dismissal of
the claim for gross negligence and reversed the ruling concerning the negligence claim, we
also vacate the award of damages and attorney’s fees to the buyers. In that the sellers are
now the prevailing parties, we remand with instructions to award the sellers the reasonable
and necessary attorney’s fees and costs they are entitled to recover pursuant to the parties’
contract.

Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights. As to Mother, the trial court found three grounds for termination: substantial noncompliance with a parenting plan, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. Regarding Father, the trial court found four grounds for termination: severe child abuse, imprisonment for two years for conduct qualifying as severe child abuse, imprisonment for ten years when the child is under eight years of age, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also determined that terminating each parent’s rights was in the child’s best interest. The trial court properly determined that a termination ground existed as to each parent and that terminating each parent’s rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

The defendant, April R. Austin, was indicted by the Knox County Garnd Jury for four counts of theft of property valued over $2500 and four counts of theft of property valued over $1000. The defendant pled guilty to one count of theft of property valued over $2500 and one count of shoplifting. Per the terms of the pela agreement, the defendant agreed to concurrent sentences of three years for her theft conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for her shoplifting conviction with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. 

The defendant, Keith Lamar March, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, failure to drive on the right side of the roadway, and evading arrest. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. 

A property owner hired a local contractor to build a custom-designed home. A payment dispute arose midway through construction, and the contractor stopped working. The owner paid others to repair and complete the home. Then he filed suit against the contractor asserting multiple theories of recovery. Among other things, the trial court found the contractor liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. As compensatory damages, it awarded the owner the additional costs he incurred to repair and complete the home above the contract price. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for recalculation of compensatory damages.

A Montgomery County jury convicted Defendant, Esperanza Mariaelena Joy Flores, of driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, and possession of an open alcohol container. Defendant argues on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges after the State failed to preserve evidence; (2) the trial court improperly limited her cross-examination of a witness; (3) the trial court improperly limited Defendant’s testimony; (4) the prosecutor made improper closing argument; (5) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle; (6) the record was not properly preserved because a court reporter was not provided to transcribe the proceedings; and (7) she is entitled to cumulative error relief. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case is before the Court on the Rule 11 application of Plaintiffs Teresa
Thompson Locke and Randy Locke (collectively the “Lockes”). This Court granted the
Rule 11 application on March 6, 2024. The matter was fully briefed and oral arguments
were conducted on December 4, 2024. We have determined that the appeal should be
dismissed, and the Court of Appeals judgment and related trial court orders vacated, for
the reasons set forth below.

Testator created a generation-skipping trust and instructed the eventual trustee to distribute all remaining trust funds to the “then living descendants of the child per stirpes” upon the death of Testator’s child. Testator’s child later died, leaving two generations of descendants. Each first-generation descendant is the parent of a corresponding second-generation descendant, and neither predeceased the Testator’s child. Trustee brought a declaratory judgment action, seeking to ascertain whether only the first generation of the child’s descendants should inherit trust funds or if, instead, members of both generations should take equally. Relying on Testator’s choice of a per stirpes distribution system, the probate court concluded that trust funds should be split equally between the first-generation descendants, reasoning that the funds do not go any further under a traditional per stirpes framework. We affirm.

A grandparent petitioned for visitation with her grandchild. The juvenile court found that the loss or severe reduction of visitation with the grandparent would cause severe emotional harm. The child’s mother appeals. Because the evidence preponderates against the court’s finding that denial of grandparent visitation would cause severe emotional harm, we reverse.

In this case involving termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights to two of their minor children, the trial court determined that two statutory grounds had been proven as to each parent by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The father and mother have each appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a complaint filed by Abdolhossain Motealleh (“Plaintiff”) entitled, “Petition for Criminal Conspiracy to Petition David Margulies for Representations.” The trial court dismissed the complaint upon the defendants’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.06(b) motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff appeals that decision. Due to profound deficiencies with Plaintiff’s brief, particularly his failure to comply with Rule 27(a)(4) and (7) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in several material respects, Plaintiff has waived his right to an appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The defendants, ReMax Tri Star Realty and Jarrod Cruz, (“Defendants”) contend this is a frivolous appeal and seek an award of damages pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-1-122. Having determined that this appeal is devoid of merit, we find the appeal to be frivolous. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to recover their reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending this frivolous appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court to make the appropriate award.

The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration on whether a settlement agreement she signed in 2016 and amended in 2017 still requires her silence on the details of the alleged sexual abuse of her son in light of the 2018 enactment of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-34-103, which makes such agreements “void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of this state.” The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, issued a blanket sealing order, and held that the Attorney General and Reporter did not have to be notified of the action and that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute would lead to unconstitutional retrospective application. We reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss, vacate the decisions on the remaining issues, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.