APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Claimant estate appeals the dismissal of its claim against the State related to the failure of a State prison to provide medical care to an inmate. Following a trial, the Claims Commission dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A jury convicted LaJuan Harbison of four counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in denying Harbison’s request for a separate trial, that his multiple convictions for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, and that the evidence was insufficient to support one of the counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion by denying Harbison’s motion for severance; whether Harbison waived the double jeopardy issue; and if not, whether Harbison’s convictions for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony violate the prohibition against double jeopardy where he used one firearm but was convicted of multiple dangerous felonies against different victims. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harbison’s request for a separate trial; Harbison did not waive the double jeopardy issue; and his multiple convictions for employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, reinstate Harbison’s three convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and three convictions for employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and remand to the trial court for resentencing and corrected judgments.

This appeal arises from the modification of a parenting plan in a post-divorce action. The original 2010 parenting plan awarded the parties equal parenting time. When the parties’ only child started school in 2012, the parents informally modified the parenting schedule so that Father had parenting time every other weekend and the parents split the holidays equally. In 2015, Mother commenced this action seeking court approval of the informal parenting schedule. The trial court granted Mother’s petition to modify and adopted Mother’s proposed parenting plan. Father appeals, claiming the trial court erred by, inter alia, failing to make findings of fact as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01, miscalculating Father’s parenting time, awarding Mother sole education and
non-emergency healthcare decision-making authority, ordering the child to attend a certain elementary school, awarding Mother a judgment for her attorney’s fees, and assessing post-judgment interest at 5.5%. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court in all respects. We also find that Mother is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred on appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-103(c).

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. The child’s physical custodians petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights. The trial court found that the petitioners had established, by clear-and-convincing evidence, three grounds for termination: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent, with the parent having exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to his incarceration; (2) incarceration with a child under age eight and a prison sentence of ten years or more; and (3) persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal from the father’s home. The trial court also determined that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. The father appeals the three grounds for termination found by the trial court. The father also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. We reverse as to the ground of persistence of conditions, but affirm termination of the father’s rights on both other grounds. We also affirm the trial court’s conclusion that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

Father filed a petition for modification of a permanent parenting plan seeking designation as the primary residential parent of the parties’ two children. Mother filed a counter-petition for modification of the residential parenting schedule in the permanent parenting plan. After a hearing, the trial court denied Father’s petition and granted Mother’s petition, reducing Father’s parenting time by twenty-four days. Father appealed. Because the trial court did not conduct an appropriate best interest analysis, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings as necessary.

The defendant, Jeffrey Wayne Hughes, pled guilty to one count of theft over $250,000, one count of theft between $10,000 and $60,000, and six counts of money laundering. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-seven years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred when failing to apply certain mitigating factors, denying probation on the money laundering offenses, and ordering his theft convictions to be served consecutively to his money laundering convictions. Following our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and pertinent authorities, we affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court.

The Defendant, Trevial Moss, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to twelve years’ confinement. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the verdict is contrary to the law and weight of the evidence; (3) the State withheld discovery material in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); and (4) the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence. Upon our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Joseph D. Sexton, entered an open guilty plea to one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. The trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced the Defendant to five years of incarceration. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in calculating the length of the sentence based on the enhancing and mitigating factors presented and that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that there was no abuse of discretion, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Dannie Weaver, the Petitioner, entered a best interest plea to driving under the influence, possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with prior convictions, possession of a Schedule II drug, possession of drug paraphernalia, and a violation of the seat belt law. The Petitioner received a total effective sentence of four years with thirty-five percent release eligibility, which was suspended to probation following the service of thirty-five days in jail. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and alleged that trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that, absent the deficient performance, the Petitioner would have proceeded to trial. The Petitioner also alleged that his best interest plea was involuntary and unknowing. The post-conviction court denied relief and the Petitioner appealed. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Keenan Scott McNeal, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for the sale of one-half gram or more of a substance containing cocaine within 1000 feet of a child care facility, for which he is serving an eight-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Purchasers of an unimproved parcel of real property filed suit against their grantor’s seller, claiming that the seller violated the warranty of title that it issued to the purchasers’ grantor. This action was filed several years after a related class action lawsuit was concluded in which the trial court ruled that the class plaintiffs’ units were properly classified as condominiums rather than fee simple estates. The trial court in the instant action dismissed the complaint on grounds of res judicata and estoppel by deed, among other grounds. The purchasers appeal, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.  

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Curtis Johnson, Jr., was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and was sentenced to twenty-four years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing partially consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Bryiant C. Overton, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted first degree murder, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, for which he is serving an effective forty-eight-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims relative to trial counsel’s performance, that he received the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, and that he was subject to inappropriate questions at the post-conviction hearing about the facts of the conviction offenses. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Dennis Rasheed Gaye, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2014 guilty plea to possession with intent to sell 0.5 gram or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a drug-free childcare zone, for which he is serving an eight-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by failing to dismiss the indictment because the judgment did not reflect the proper conviction. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Joshua Michael Stewart, was found guilty by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-15-522 (2014) (rape of a child), 39-13-504 (2014) (aggravated sexual battery). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years for rape of a child, twelve years for aggravated sexual battery, and eight years for aggravated sexual battery. The court ordered partial consecutive service, for an effective sentence of thirtythree years at 100% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and (2) the court erred by denying his request to exclude references to his tattoos and relationship with his father from the recording of his police interview. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns termination of a father’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Shelby County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Kenneth F. (“Father”) to his minor child Ken’bria B. (“the Child”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child. Father timely appealed to this Court. On appeal, Father argues, among other things, that he has an upcoming opportunity for parole and, therefore, the ground of incarceration for ten years or longer when the child is less than eight years of age should not apply. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court.

Michael Mayuric (“Employee”) was employed by Huff & Puff Trucking, Inc. (“Employer”) as an over-the-road truck driver. While driving through Minnesota, his truck slid off the road. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) after the accident. He brought this action, alleging that he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the accident. Employer denied that Employee was totally disabled. The trial court found that Employee had sustained 80% permanent partial disability from the incident. Employer has appealed. 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.

The Petitioner, Joseph Miles, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged his second degree murder conviction and resulting forty-year sentence. We conclude that the Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief, and we affirm the denial of his petition in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant, Jerica Elizabeth Taylor, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-402 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years’ confinement at 85% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, (2) the trial court improperly limited her cross-examination of the victim, (3) the photograph lineup was improperly admitted as evidence, and (4) the trial court erred during sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Calvin Reeves, appeals the trial court’s entry of amended judgment forms, without notice to him, which removed pretrial jail credit from two of his three consecutive sentences. He claims those credits were part of his negotiated plea agreement. Based upon our review of the record, the triplicate award of pretrial jail credit was a clerical error such that the trial court had the authority to amend the judgments under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. However, the amended judgment form for Count One still contains a clerical error when compared with the actual pretrial jail credit awarded during the plea submission hearing. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in part, reverse in part, and remand for the entry of a corrected judgment form on Count One.

This interlocutory appeal arises out of an action in which two companies brought suit against their former attorney for legal malpractice. The attorney moved for summary judgment as to one client’s claim, contending that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations; the client responded that it learned of its cause of action within one year of the assertion of the claim. The attorney then sought through discovery to have the former client produce communications from the client’s new counsel; the client declined to produce the communications, taking the position that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The attorney moved the trial court to compel the client to produce the communications, and the court granted the motion, holding that the client impliedly waived attorney-client privilege in asserting that the client discovered the cause of action within the year preceding the assertion of the claim. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s holding.

Jamie Jordan (“Employee”) is employed by the City of Murfreesboro (“Employer”) as a trash collector. He allegedly sustained a low back injury on May 22, 2012, when lifting a wet sofa into a refuse truck. Employer denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits claiming, both, he failed to provide timely notice of his injury and his symptoms were caused by a preexisting condition. The trial court held Employee sustained a compensable injury and awarded 6% permanent partial disability benefits. Employer appeals. 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.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right from certification of a class. Plaintiff, a physician-owned independent practice association, and Defendant, an organization that owns several hospitals and medical clinics, formed a physician-hospital organization to further their mutual interests, such as joint negotiations with entities such as insurance companies. Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that Defendant breached the contractual non-solicitation and non-competition agreement between the parties, which caused harm to Plaintiff and its members. Plaintiff moved to certify a class consisting of itself and its members, and Defendant objected. The trial court certified the class with respect to all claims pursuant to each of the three categories of class actions specified in Rule 23.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We reverse the trial court’s certification of the class pursuant to Rule 23.02 subsection (1) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and certification of the class pursuant to subsections (2) and (3) of Rule 23.02 and remand for further proceedings.

This case involves the appeal of an action for possession of property initially filed in general sessions court. On appeal to the circuit court, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s counterclaims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The circuit court thereafter determined that the appeal from general sessions court was not timely. We reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of the general sessions appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but affirm the dismissal of the appellant’s counterclaims.

This is a will contest. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion to set aside its order admitting Decedent’s will to probate and, subsequently, struck Appellant’s motion to amend his counter-petition because such amendment would be futile. The trial court additionally found that Decedent possessed testamentary capacity to execute a holographic will, and that although there was a confidential relationship between Decedent and Beneficiary, Beneficiary provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence. Discerning no error, we affirm.