APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I write separately in this case because I respectfully disagree with one point in the majority’s analysis, namely, the conclusion that Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-14-402(a) is clear and unambiguous.

The Petitioner, Vernon Walton, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his December 5, 2016 guilty plea conviction of attempted first degree murder, for which he is serving a sixteen-year sentence. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief based upon his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and entry of an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

On September 21, 2015, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner, Michael Delk, for aggravated rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, sexual exploitation of a minor, and ten counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. On May 4, 2017, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of rape of a child and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve twenty-seven years at one hundred percent for rape of a child and eight years at one hundred percent for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, consecutive to the first count, for a total effective sentence of thirty-five years to serve at one hundred percent. On July 20, 2018, Petitioner filed an untimely pro se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition as time-barred. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

On March 24, 2015, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant-Appellant, Reginald Parnell, for two counts of aggravated assault. On May 21, 2018, the day he was set for trial, the Defendant accepted a plea agreement and entered an Alford plea to each count of aggravated assault in exchange for a concurrent term of three years’ probation. On June 15, 2018, represented by newly retained counsel, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon our review, we affirm.

In January 2015, the Sequatchie County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Willard C. Land, for first degree premeditated murder. Following a trial in February 2018, a jury found Defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, for which Defendant received a sentence of thirty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior threats and acts of violence against the victim and others, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Cleotris Ruben, entered best interest pleas in two separate cases to one count of Class E felony theft of property and one count of Class A misdemeanor theft of property. Prior to a sentencing hearing, the Defendant filed motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the trial court denied. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of one year in the workhouse and six years of supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions to withdraw his pleas because he provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that a “fair and just reason” justifies the withdrawal of his guilty pleas. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for appointment of new counsel and a new hearing on the Defendant’s motions to withdraw his pleas.

The Petitioner, Gerald McEwen, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and attempted first degree murder, for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately cross-examine an eyewitness and in failing to formally move for a mistrial following alleged improper conduct by the prosecutrix. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Presley William Nave, Jr., pled guilty to one count of statutory rape, a Class E felony, and one count of child abuse, a Class D felony, in exchange for a two-year sentence on probation. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to register as a sex offender. The Defendant appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court gave improper weight to the original offenses charged; and (2) that the trial court did not consider factors weighing against placing the Defendant on the sex offender registry. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Gustavius Smith, Defendant, admitted to violating the terms of probation and was allowed to enter a six-month program at a rehabilitation facility. After three additional violation of probation warrants were issued alleging Defendant received new criminal charges, and after Defendant was expelled from two rehabilitation programs, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Discerning no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Casey Carlos Raines, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2016 convictions of simple possession of methamphetamine and failure to appear, as time-barred. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

After a jury trial, the Defendant, Jonathan A. Wheatley, was convicted of two counts of child abuse and neglect. Subsequently, the trial court ordered a new trial, and the Defendant later pled guilty to one count of child abuse and neglect. As a condition of his guilty plea, he sought to reserve the right to appeal three certified questions of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside his two initial convictions. Following our review of the record, we dismiss the appeal because the Defendant failed to properly certify his questions of law in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2).

Paternal great uncle and great aunt of a minor child filed a petition under the grandparent visitation statute, Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 36-6-306, and the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, finding that the petitioners did not meet the statutory definition of “grandparent.”  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jerry A. Thigpen, was found in contempt of court for four separate acts of publishing online certain materials related to his underlying charge of misdemeanor assault, and he received an aggregate sentence of forty days in jail, with two days suspended. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt, that he did not have adequate notice of the charges, that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing, and that the trial court was obligated to recuse itself. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Tipton County jury convicted the Defendant, Nathan Allen Wallace, of rape, aggravated statutory rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and incest, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted prior statements by the victim into evidence; (2) declined to enforce a subpoena for the victim’s DCS record; (3) admitted expert testimony on the subject of “grooming”; and (4) limited his cross-examination of the victim. The Defendant also contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his request for a suspended sentence should have been granted. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Lindsey, of aggravated rape for a crime committed in 2005, and he was sentenced to serve thirty years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and asserts that the ten-year delay in indicting him violated his right to due process. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and that the Defendant has waived the issue of pre-indictment delay. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and the case remanded for correction of the judgment form.

This appeal concerns the validity of an agreed order entered in a proceeding before the Tennessee Board of Equalization in a contested case between Anderson County, Tennessee, and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Inc. The order purported to settle a dispute over the value of dies, jigs, and molds used for manufacturing automobile parts. The attorney for the Tennessee Comptroller’s Division of Property Assessments, which intervened in the proceeding, signed the agreed order on behalf of Toyota and the Anderson County Property Assessor “with express permission” of both parties, two months later, the Assessor moved to set the order aside, asserting that he had not agreed to the settlement terms or given the attorney for the Division of Property Assessments permission to sign on his behalf. The administrative judge treated the motion as one for extraordinary relief under the guidance of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 and held an evidentiary hearing. The administrative judge found the testimony of the Division of Property Assessment’s attorney was more credible than that of the Anderson County Assessor and denied the motion. The County filed a petition for review with the Chancery Court and the trial court reversed the decision of the administrative law judge, finding that the documentary evidence gave more credibility to the Assessor’s testimony. Considering the deference that reviewing courts must give to credibility determinations, we find no basis for reversing the administrative judge’s decision to deny Anderson County’s motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case with instructions to remand the case to the Tennessee Board of Equalization for further proceedings.

Gregg T. Merrilees, Defendant, was indicted for aggravated robbery, robbery in concert with two or more persons, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The week prior to trial, the State moved to amend count one to change the theory by which it would prove aggravated robbery. Defendant filed a response stating that he did not consent to amendment and requesting a continuance if the trial court granted the motion to amend. The trial court granted the State’s motion to amend and denied Defendant’s motion to continue. The same week, Defendant moved for a second continuance so that he could employ private counsel rather than appointed counsel, and the trial court denied the motion. Prior to the jury panel being sworn, the trial court issued preliminary jury instructions. Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery in count one and robbery in concert with two or more persons in count two. He was acquitted of the especially aggravating kidnapping in count three. The trial court merged counts one and two and sentenced Defendant to serve eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by amending the indictment without also granting Defendant a continuance, by denying Defendant’s motion to continue so he could employ private counsel, and by issuing preliminary jury instructions prior to the jury panel being sworn. Defendant also argues that cumulative error requires the granting of a new trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

The Board of Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) filed a Petition for Discipline against James MacDonald (“Attorney”) based on a single complaint arising from his representation of Michael Huddleston.  A hearing panel (“the Panel”) was appointed and, after an evidentiary hearing, the Panel dismissed the Petition for Discipline and concluded that the Board “failed to sustain its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Attorney violated” any Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”).  Thereafter, the Board filed a petition for review of the Panel’s decision in the Knox County Chancery Court.  The chancery court reversed the Panel’s dismissal of all six rule violations and determined that the Panel’s conclusions were arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by the evidence.  In addition, the chancery court held that the Panel abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard.  The chancery court found that Attorney violated all six rules alleged in the Board’s petition and imposed a public censure as punishment.  Attorney sought review in this Court, arguing that the chancery court incorrectly substituted its own judgment for that of the Panel’s and abused its discretion.  Upon review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the chancery court’s conclusion that Attorney violated RPC 3.3(b) and (c), 3.4(a) and (b), and 8.4(a), and we reinstate the Panel’s dismissal of those allegations.  Additionally, we hold that the chancery court was without authority to conclude that Attorney violated RPC 8.4(c), and this Court must treat the Panel’s failure to make a conclusion as a dismissal of the allegation.  Therefore, the Petition for Discipline against Attorney is dismissed in its entirety.

This is a dispute regarding the ownership of a gravel lane used to access a 95-acre tract of land; Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their suit to quiet title to the property or, alternatively, for a declaration that they acquired ownership of the road through adverse possession. The trial court held that Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-110 barred Plaintiffs from pursuing their claim of ownership because there was no proof that they had paid taxes on the property at issue for twenty years, as required by the statute; finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

 This is an action to pierce the corporate veil. In a previous action in which the limited liability company was the only defendant, the plaintiffs received a default judgment for breach of contract in the amount of $709,500. The same plaintiffs subsequently filed this action against the sole member of the now-defunct limited liability company to pierce the corporate veil and hold the defendant personally liable for the unsatisfied judgment. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, determining that the undisputed facts weighed against piercing the corporate veil, and the plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

The defendant, Willie Lee Ballard, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentences imposed for his convictions of rape and violating the sex offender registration requirements. Because we discern no error in the ruling of the trial court, we affirm the order of revocation. Because, however, we discern clerical error in the judgment form for case number 277642, the case is remanded for the entry of a corrected judgment.

This is the second appeal of this termination of parental rights case. Appellants appeal the trial court’s termination of their parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by willful failure to support, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1); and (2) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3). Because it does not appear that the trial court exercised its independent judgment in reaching its decision, we vacate the judgment and remand for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(k) (2017). Such findings and conclusions must also be a product of the trial court’s own independent judgment.

This appeal concerns a jury verdict in a personal injury case. Joanna L. Golden (“Golden”) was jogging in the dark early one morning when she was struck accidentally by a car driven by Cynthia D. Powers (“Powers”). Golden and her husband, Douglas K. Rice (“Rice”) (“Plaintiffs,” collectively), sued Powers in the Circuit Court for Hawkins County (“the Trial Court”), asserting various claims including negligence. The matter was tried before a jury. The jury found Golden to be 80% and Powers 20% at fault. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the Trial Court denied. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court arguing that the Trial Court failed to act as thirteenth juror and that the jury’s allocation of fault was unsupported by material evidence. Plaintiffs argue also that the jury was prejudiced against them for their being well-off out-of-towners. We find, first, that the Trial Court independently weighed the evidence and acted properly as thirteenth juror. We find further that the jury’s allocation of fault is supported by material evidence. Finally, Plaintiffs’ claim of jury prejudice is speculative, at best. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

This appeal concerns a jury verdict in a personal injury case. Joanna L. Golden (“Golden”) was jogging in the dark early one morning when she was struck accidentally by a car driven by Cynthia D. Powers (“Powers”). Golden and her husband, Douglas K. Rice (“Rice”) (“Plaintiffs,” collectively), sued Powers in the Circuit Court for Hawkins County (“the Trial Court”), asserting various claims including negligence. The matter was tried before a jury. The jury found Golden to be 80% and Powers 20% at fault. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the Trial Court denied. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court arguing that the Trial Court failed to act as thirteenth juror and that the jury’s allocation of fault was unsupported by material evidence. Plaintiffs argue also that the jury was prejudiced against them for their being well-off out-of-towners. We find, first, that the Trial Court independently weighed the evidence and acted properly as thirteenth juror. We find further that the jury’s allocation of fault is supported by material evidence. Finally, Plaintiffs’ claim of jury prejudice is speculative, at best. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Defendant, Marvin Stinnett, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, three counts of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions for attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.