APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A motor vehicle accident on the roadway abutting a truck stop resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s husband. The driver of the vehicle turning left into the truck stop was using the entrance meant for semi-trailer trucks and had a limited view of oncoming traffic due to a hill that crested a short distance ahead. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against the truck stop owners and operators, asserting they created a hazardous condition by failing to place visible signage on their property directing passenger vehicles to the appropriate entrance. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, contending they owed no duty to the traveling public because the collision occurred on a municipal road, not on their property. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff appealed. We reverse the trial court’s judgment, holding that a balancing test is required to determine whether the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff’s husband and that dismissing the complaint is premature at this stage of the proceedings.

Ex-husband filed a petition for modification of alimony of $1,000 each month to ex-wife, claiming a material and substantial change in circumstances. Ex-wife filed a counter petition to increase the alimony. The trial court found that neither party met their burden of proof and awarded attorney’s fees to the ex-wife for the expense of defending exhusband’s petition. Ex-husband subsequently filed two motions to alter or amend. The trial court denied both of these motions and awarded additional attorney’s fees to ex-wife for defending the motions. Ex-husband timely appeals. We affirm.

After a jury trial, Kristina Cole was convicted of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count one, conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count two, facilitation of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count three, and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count four. The jury found Montez Mullins guilty of facilitation of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count one and facilitation of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count two. Defendant Cole received a total effective sentence of thirteen and one-half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant Montez received a total effective sentence of thirty years as a career offender. On appeal, both Defendant Cole and Defendant Montez argue that the evidence at trial was insufficient for a rational juror to have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Defendant Cole argues that the trial court erred by allowing Detective Gaia and Investigator Brown to speculate about the meaning of text messages between Defendant Cole and Defendant Jason White. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Heather Rogers McCollum, appeals from the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) trial counsel “did not move to suppress her confession at trial”; and (2) appellate counsel did not “address the issue of the physical facts rule in his appellate brief.” Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post conviction court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Antonio Benson, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on selfdefense, that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence about a prior violent act committed by the victim, that the trial court erred by preventing him from sitting at counsel table during the trial, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and that the State failed to show the error was harmless. Accordingly, the Appellant’s conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

I concur in the affirmance of the Circuit Court for Hamilton County’s denial of the petition of Dr. Kerry Douglas Friesen for modification of his alimony obligation and the award of attorney’s fees to Ms. Beverley Joy Friesen. I write separately to address the authority under which the trial court awarded attorney’s fees.

Petitioner, Derrick Pierce, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial which forced him to plead guilty after the trial began, and the State had presented proof. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, James Carroll, filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated assault and driving under the influence (DUI), second offense and effective four-year, six-month sentence. In the petition, the Petitioner alleged that (1) the State violated his due process rights by failing to collect and preserve evidence pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), and that (2) his trial counsel was ineffective (a) by failing to challenge the State’s Ferguson violation and (b) by advising the Petitioner to waive his motion for new trial and his direct appeal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant on a premises liability claim. Because the plaintiff offered no evidence to support an essential element of her premises liability claim at the summary judgment stage, we affirm.

Petitioner, Rico Eugene Mallard, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he challenged his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and first degree premeditated murder and his effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-two years. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

This opinion is being filed contemporaneously with our opinion in Cox v. Lucas, No. E2017-02264-COA-R3-CV. Each case involves a custody dispute between Laura Nicole Lucas (mother) and one of her two ex-husbands. In the present case, Lewis Alvin Minyard (father) filed a petition in the trial court for ex parte emergency relief and modification of the permanent parenting plan. Over two and a half years later, mother filed a motion to dismiss all orders resulting from father’s petition as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mother argued that father’s petition included allegations of dependency and neglect, which implicated the exclusive original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied mother’s motion. Mother appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This opinion is being filed contemporaneously with our opinion in Minyard v. Lucas, No. E2017-02261-COA-R3-CV.1 Each case involves a post-divorce custody dispute between Laura Nicole Lucas (mother) and one of her two ex-husbands. In the present case, Bradley James Cox (father) filed a petition in the trial court for ex parte emergency relief and modification of the permanent parenting plan. Nearly two years later, mother filed a motion to dismiss all orders resulting from father’s petition as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mother argued that father’s petition included allegations of dependency and neglect, which implicated the exclusive original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied mother’s motion. Mother appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Alexander R. Carino, pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to forty-three years of incarceration. The Petitioner did not appeal his convictions and did not file a timely post-conviction petition. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, which the habeas corpus court summarily dismissed. This court affirmed. Alexander R. Carino v. State, M2017-00345- CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3311196, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 3, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017). The Petitioner filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred and should have waived the statute of limitations because his trial counsel did not give him his case file to prepare the petition and because he had been denied access to the prison legal library, thereby delaying the filing of his petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Petitioner, O’Dell Taylor Wisdom, appeals from the summary dismissal of his pro se pleading in which he alleges that his convictions for failure to appear and contempt violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff real estate developer appeals the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendants on claims of tortious interference with a contract, inducement of breach of contract, and promissory fraud. Because the plaintiff failed to construct any argument responsive to the stated basis for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we affirm. 

Defendant, Richard Lee Diviney, Sr., contends that his guilty plea should be set aside because the fee provision of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-420(h)-(j) is unconstitutional and that the trial court erred by not “actually” applying a mitigating factor during sentencing. After a thorough review, we determine that Defendant’s challenge to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-420(h)-(j) was resolved by the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Decosimo, 555 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. 2018). Additionally, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion when sentencing Defendant. Thus, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand for entry of corrected judgments that properly indicate the merger of Counts Two and Three into Count One.

A trial court terminated a father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support, abandonment by willful failure to visit, and persistence of conditions. The father appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that it was not in the child’s best interest for his rights to be terminated. We reverse the trial court’s judgment terminating the father’s rights based on persistence of conditions because the child was not removed from the father’s home by an order of the court, as Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) requires. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

The petitioner, Terrence Justin Feaster, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, which petition challenged his 2012 Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Appellant, Quinton Dujaun Primm, was convicted in the Dickson County Circuit Court of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and selling less than one-half gram of cocaine, a Class C felony, and received consecutive sentences of twenty-five and fifteen years, respectively. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing a lay witness to testify about what the witness heard on an audiotape, that the trial court erred by refusing to declare a mistrial when a witness revealed that the Appellant had been incarcerated previously, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Edwin Millan, appeals his Bradley County Criminal Court jury convictions of filing a false or fraudulent insurance claim, initiating a false police report, and tampering with evidence. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to correct false testimony offered by a State’s witness, that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that certain witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law, that the trial court erred by permitting a witness to testify as an expert, that the trial court erred by permitting certain testimony, that the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the evidence tampering charge, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred by ordering a fully incarcerative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In 2014, the Petitioner, Randall Wallace Kidd, pleaded guilty to filing a false police report; he later filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, which the trial court denied. While released on bond, the Petitioner failed to appear for his sentencing hearing and was indicted and convicted at trial for failure to appear. The trial court imposed a nine-year sentence for the false police report conviction and a consecutive three-year sentence for the failure to appear conviction. In 2016, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had not entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily due to intoxication and that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at his guilty plea hearing and at trial. The post-conviction court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, David Englebert, entered guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and four counts of aggravated assault pursuant to a plea agreement, in exchange for an effective sentence of twelve years to be served with an eighty-five percent release eligibility date. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he was never informed of the elements of the offense of aggravated robbery. The post-conviction court denied his claim without making any findings of fact, and the Petitioner appeals. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established prejudice with regard to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment denying that claim. Because there is inconsistent evidence regarding whether the Petitioner was informed about the elements of the offense, we remand for the post-conviction court to make factual findings and credibility determinations relevant to the claim that the Petitioner’s pleas were not knowing and voluntary.

This appeal involves a contract between an aspiring country music artist and a record company owner for promotion of the artist’s songs. After the record company owner died, the artist demanded an accounting from the owner’s widow and filed this lawsuit alleging that the record company and its owner breached the promotion agreement executed by the parties. The trial court found that the record company owner breached the contract by failing “to adequately promote” the artist’s singles and awarded the artist a judgment for $223,069.89. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Appellant, Edward Dewayne Shelton, Jr., appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his “motion to dismiss the indictment and motion to withdraw guilty plea and motion to correct illegal sentence.” The Appellant contends (1) that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was timely filed because there was no file stamp date on the judgment form; (2) that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel; (3) that the charging indictment was void because it “was only signed by the foreman of the grand jury”; and (4) that his sentence was illegal because he was classified as a Range II, multiple offender rather than a Range I, standard offender. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton, Tennessee, filed this action to challenge the confiscation and destruction of his property and the decision of the prison grievance board concerning said property. The respondents denied the allegations. The trial court dismissed the petition as to all respondents. We affirm.