APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed because the petition for recusal appeal was untimely and the time for filing a petition for recusal appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by this court. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.08. We also find that the petition would have to be dismissed due to numerous and substantive failures to comply with Rule 10B § 2.02, including the failure to file a copy of the affidavit in support of the motion for recusal as well as the trial court’s order denying recusal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Laverick Clark, of one count of attempted first degree murder with serious bodily injury, one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of stalking. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial and when it sentenced him. He also contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Bryan Anthony Capps, of two counts of sexual battery, two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, and one count of violating the Sexual Offender Registry. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective eight-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In his appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to show that the Defendant qualified as an authority figure or that he conducted an overnight visit at a residence with minors present; (2) the trial court’s oath as administered to the minor witnesses, which included a “pinky promise,” amounted to an improper comment on their credibility; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to question a defense witness about felony convictions more than ten years old; and (4) the trial court erred by denying split confinement and by imposing consecutive sentences. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Travis Andrew Harris, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and
possession of a firearm by a felon convicted of a violent crime. The trial court imposed an
effective sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the
evidence at trial as to his premeditation and identity was insufficient to support his murder
conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and affirm Defendant’s
conviction. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (3) persistence of conditions which led to removal; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision.

Stacy Michelle Cochran, Defendant, entered an open plea of guilty to three felonies and one misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced her as a Range II multiple offender to an effective sentence of twenty-four years to be served at 35%, plus eleven months and 29 days to be served at 75%. Defendant claims that the State entered into a plea agreement for her to be sentenced as a Range I offender and that the trial court erred in sentencing her as a Range II offender. Because the record on appeal, which does not contain the transcript of the plea submission hearing or the transcript of the sentencing hearing, is inadequate for meaningful appellate review, we are precluded from addressing the issue. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

The Defendant, Artevious Moore, Jr., pled guilty to theft of property and was placed on judicial diversion. Thereafter, the Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, leaving sentencing to the trial court. He also agreed to have the trial court rescind his judicial diversion, enter an adjudication of guilt as to the theft charge, and allow the court to impose the sentence. After a consolidated sentencing hearing, the court denied alternative sentencing and sentenced the Defendant to three years for the aggravated assault conviction and two years for the theft conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be aligned consecutively for an effective sentence of five years to be served in confinement. The Defendant appealed, challenging the consecutive sentences and the denial of alternative sentencing. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal stems from an inmate’s lawsuit seeking a transfer to another facility due to a claimed imminent risk of violence from other inmates.  Benjamin Douglas (“Plaintiff”) sued Frank Strada, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, and the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Hardeman County (“the Trial Court”), asking for injunctive and declaratory relief based on the safe prisons clause of the Tennessee Constitution.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted.  The Trial Court found that it lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.  Plaintiff appeals.  We hold, inter alia, that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not jurisdictional in this case; that the Trial Court abused its discretion in applying the exhaustion doctrine when Defendants failed to properly raise that affirmative defense; and that the Trial Court erred in considering matters outside the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.  We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This case involves an unlawful detainer action filed by a community development center against a tenant for failure to pay rent and for unruly conduct.  The detainer action ultimately resulted in the tenant’s eviction and a monetary judgment against the tenant for delinquent rent payments.  The tenant now appeals the judgment of the trial court.  Because the tenant’s appellate brief does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

A Claiborne County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jamie Scott Brock, of first degree murder in 2006, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. More than thirteen years after his conviction was affirmed on appeal, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 2024. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition after finding it to be untimely and concluding that principles of due process did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. The Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is an action for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4- 21-101 to -1004 (“THRA”). The plaintiff, an associate professor at a state university, applied for promotion to the rank of full professor. While his application was under review, the plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge against the university with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). A short time later, the university denied the plaintiff’s promotion based on his alleged lack of high-quality scholarship. The trial court dismissed the action at the summary judgment stage, reasoning that the plaintiff had not produced evidence to rebut the university’s stated reason for denying his promotion. This appeal followed. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because there was evidence that the university’s administration knowingly violated university policy by reevaluating the merits of the plaintiff’s peer-reviewed scholarship. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

The Petitioners seek accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to recuse. However, because the Petitioners’ filings fail to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

In 2022, the Petitioner entered a best interest plea to one count of reckless homicide and two counts of selling fentanyl. By agreement, the State dismissed multiple other pending charges, and the trial court entered the agreed sentence of fifteen years. In 2024, the Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief contending that, pursuant to the circumstances of the plea, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case, nullifying his convictions. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition. The Petitioner filed an untimely appeal but claims that he improperly filed for appeal in the wrong court. On appeal, he maintains his subject matter jurisdiction claim. After review, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court partially granted the husband’s petition to modify or terminate spousal support, reducing the husband’s monthly alimony in futuro obligation to the wife from $1,750.00 to $1,500.00 upon finding that the husband’s retirement constituted a substantial and material change in circumstance warranting the reduction. The husband has appealed, arguing that the court erred by declining to terminate or further reduce his support obligation. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Joseph Sakai Hall, pleaded guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of aggravated assault involving serious bodily injury, a Class C felony, and received a sentence of three to four years as a Range I offender with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service and whether to grant Defendant’s request for judicial diversion.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for diversion and sentenced him to four years with 180 days to serve and the remainder to be supervised on probation.  After a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Eugenio Gomez Ruiz, of furnishing alcohol to a person under twenty-one years of age, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, ordering that the sentence be suspended after service of six months in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred (1) in finding that the crime is a strict liability crime and thereby erred in denying his requests for a jury instruction on mental states and to introduce evidence relevant to certain defenses; and (2) in sentencing him to serve six months in confinement. He also asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by charging him with a strict liability offense instead of one requiring a culpable mental state. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Raymond Mefford, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault following a bench trial in the Robertson County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to serve four years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing, arguing that the trial court should have offered the elderly and homeless Defendant rehabilitative treatment in the form of housing assistance or work programs. Following our review, we affirm.

Petitioner, Doyle Wayne Mason, Jr., 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 object to the State’s closing argument, failing to adequately advise
him concerning the State’s plea offer, and failing to move to exclude discovery received
on the eve of trial. Petitioner further argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for
failing to raise on direct appeal the issue of Juror 2’s presence on the jury. Following our
review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction
court.

The Petitioner, William G. Creasy, appeals the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) classification of the marital residence as marital property; (2) decision not to admit Tennessee Rule of Evidence 1006 summaries tendered by Husband; (3) finding of criminal contempt against Husband; (4) award of transitional alimony to Wife; and (5) award of a portion of Wife’s attorney’s fees and costs as alimony in solido. Wife asks for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted.

Appellant appeals the denial of its motion to quash a notice of lien lis pendens. Because the trial court improvidently certified its order as final under Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This appeal stems from a dispute over a purportedly defective sprinkler system which malfunctioned, causing significant damage to Campus Chalet, Inc. (“Campus Chalet”). East Tennessee Sprinkler Company, Inc. (“ETS”) installed the system in 1992 and remained contractually responsible for subsequent inspections, testing, and maintenance of the system. On October 5, 2023, Campus Chalet’s insurance carrier filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Washington County (the “trial court”), against ETS, alleging that the sprinkler system malfunctioned and caused significant damage to Campus Chalet. ETS filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was time-barred by a statute of repose. The trial court granted ETS’s motion, and this appeal followed. Because we agree with the appellant that the negligence and breach of contract claims are based on ongoing failures to inspect, test, and maintain the system, we reverse.

The Petitioner, Justin Quistopher Webb, pled guilty to attempted first degree murder and theft of property and received a sentence of twenty years. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of the significant consequences of the plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition by finding that plea counsel was not ineffective. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition, asserting that he proved his allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Bobby V. Summers, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motions to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

Brad Wigdor brings this appeal challenging the facial constitutionality of several aspects of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because we conclude that Wigdor's constitutional arguments lack merit, we affirm.