APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiff initiated this health care liability action on January 25, 2016. The defendant medical provider filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the plaintiff had failed to attach the documentation required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(b) to demonstrate that proper pre-suit notice had been transmitted. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) regarding a medical authorization compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). While noting that the plaintiff had substantially complied with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(4) and (b), the trial court found that the medical authorization forwarded by the plaintiff was incomplete and failed to comply with HIPAA’s release requirements. The trial court therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff has timely appealed. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff substantially complied with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(4) and (b). We reverse, however, the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to substantially comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26- 121(a)(2)(E)

Appellant appeals the dismissal of her action based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and non-compliance with Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Thomas Pleas Watts, pleaded guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-418 (2010) (amended 2014, 2016) (misdemeanor possession of marijuana), 39-17-425 (2014) (misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court granted the Defendant judicial diversion for eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant presents certified questions of law regarding the trial court’s denying his motion to suppress. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant brought this action challenging the settlement agreement reached by the contestants in a will contest. Appellant, the legitimated child of Decedent’s deceased son, filed suit to set aside the settlement agreement based on allegations that the will contestants, including Appellant’s half-siblings, i.e., Appellees, engaged in fraud and misrepresentation in an effort to exclude Appellant from her share of Decedent’s estate. Because Appellant had knowledge of the will contest, chose not to participate in the will contest, and there is no evidence that the Appellees acted in bad faith or fraudulently, we conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to order a share of the Decedent’s estate to be distributed to Appellant. Affirmed and remanded.

Petitioner, David Delgado Echeveria, pled guilty to the possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver. Over five years later, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that his attorney had failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of his plea. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition for failure to file within the statutory limitations period, and Petitioner appeals. We conclude that the petition was filed outside the limitations period and that Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to due process tolling. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This appeal involves the interpretation and enforcement of a will executed by Wanda Joyce Watkins (“the Decedent”).1 Specifically at issue is a provision bequeathing the residue and remainder of the Decedent’s estate to her prior husband, Mr. John Vance (“Mr. Vance”). Although Mr. Vance’s children (“the Vance children”) claimed entitlement to the residuary estate by virtue of the anti-lapse statute codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 32-3-105, the executrix of the estate contended that such a disposition was inconsistent with the Decedent’s intent. The trial court agreed with the position of the executrix and rejected the Vance children’s claim to receive under the will. The trial court also held that portions of the respective parties’ attorney’s fees should be paid by the estate. Although we reverse the trial court’s decision regarding the application of the anti-lapse statute, we affirm its order as it pertains to the assessment of attorney’s fees.

The petitioner, Michael Goodrum, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2012 Maury County Circuit Court jury convictions of possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a park and possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, for which he received a sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the cumulative effect of his counsel’s errors prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Claude David Powers, pleaded guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-102 (2014) (amended 2015). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years, with one year to serve in confinement and the remainder to serve on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) his four-year sentence is excessive and (2) the trial court erred in denying his request for full probation. Because the trial court failed to place the appropriate findings of fact and determinations on the record as required by our sentencing laws, we remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

An inmate of the Coffee County jail was injured when he fell off a truck being driven by another inmate while working on a detail for the City of Manchester.  The inmate filed suit against the city and the county pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act to recover for alleged negligence on the part of the city and county.  The inmate settled his claim against the county.  The city moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was immune from suit because the inmate’s recovery was limited to medical treatment for the injury he received; the court agreed and dismissed the suit.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment.    

This is a termination of parental rights case involving the parental rights of the father, Clyde J. (“Father”) to his minor child, Catherine J. (“the Child”). On August 4, 2016, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights.The matter was heard on January 26, 2017, and the trial court entered a final judgment on February 13, 2017, terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child. Father timely filed a notice of appeal. However, Father failed to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-124(d) (Supp. 2016) in that he failed to sign the notice of appeal. At the direction of this Court, Father filed an amended notice of appeal that contained his signature on April 7, 2017, more than thirty days from entry of the trial court’s final judgment. Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss Father’s appeal.

This appeal involves a father’s efforts to modify a permanent parenting plan. The father filed a petition in which he requested to be named the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child. At the close of the father’s proof, the mother moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the father failed to carry his burden of proving a material change in circumstance. The trial court agreed, found that the father’s evidence was insufficient to establish a material change in circumstances, and dismissed his petition. The father appealed. On appeal, we conclude that the evidence in the record preponderates against the trial court’s findings. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal arises out of the alleged wrongful seizure of Plaintiff’s personal property, mainly cars and trailers, which were removed from Plaintiff’s residence by order of the City of Clarksville Building and Codes Director. Instead of appealing the decision of the Building and Codes Director pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 27-9-101 and -102, Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Clarksville (“the City”) and three city officials alleging that the removal and retention of his personal property constituted conversion and inverse condemnation. He also asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all claims. The court ruled that the City had immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) because Plaintiff failed to allege a policy, practice, or custom which caused his harm. Additionally and alternatively, the court dismissed the claims of inverse condemnation, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the § 1983 civil rights violations because the complaint failed to allege essential elements of each claim. The court also found the claims were time-barred. As for the defendants who were sued in their individual capacities, the court dismissed the claims because the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, and because Plaintiff failed to provide a summons for service of process on each of the defendants. This appeal followed. Plaintiff raises twelve issues for us to consider on appeal. Since Plaintiff did not raise several of these issues in the trial court, they are deemed waived. As for the remaining issues, we find them unavailing for the reasons explained below. Therefore, we affirm the trial court in all respects. 

An inmate of the Coffee County jail was injured while working on a detail for the City of Tullahoma in a cemetery; he filed suit against the City and County pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act to recover for asserted negligence that caused his injury. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that each was immune from suit because liability was limited by Tennessee Code Annotated, section 41-2-123, to the inmate’s medical expenses, which had been paid. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the case. The inmate appeals; discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.  

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The Appellant Rebecca Rothchild (“Mother”) challenges the trial court’s division of marital property, its designation of Bobby Pack (“Father”) as the primary custodian of the parties’ children, and its refusal to award her alimony. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A plaintiff filed a complaint against three entities asserting claims for breach of contract, among others. The trial court granted each defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal as to two of the three orders dismissing her complaint, and the Court of Appeals granted the third defendant’s motion to be dismissed from the appeal. On appeal, the plaintiff argues the trial court improperly granted the third defendant’s motion to dismiss for procedural reasons, and she complains the trial court refused to provide her with a transcript of the hearings. Finding no merit to the plaintiff’s arguments, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Kenneth Hayes, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for reckless aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit the intentional killing of an animal worth over $1000, theft of property over $1000, and evading arrest and his effective sentence of forty years, eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to raise sufficiency of the evidence in the motion for a new trial, trial counsel failed to object to the application of enhancement factors during the sentencing hearing, and trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s determination that the Petitioner was a Range II offender. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The Petitioner, James Hoover, pleaded no contest to vehicular homicide and vehicular assault. The trial court entered the sentence agreed to by the parties: twelve years. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that his counsel had been ineffective, rendering his plea unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the Petitioner relief, and after review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Mario Cogshell, entered guilty pleas in the Robertson County Circuit Court to three counts of possessing less than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand the case for entry of proper judgment forms for the charges that were dismissed as a result of the guilty plea.

A White County jury convicted Defendant, Lester Arnold Clouse, of aggravated assault, assault, and resisting arrest. The trial court merged the resisting arrest conviction into the aggravated assault conviction and sentenced Defendant to an effective fifteen-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender, to be served consecutively to other outstanding sentences. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but reversed his sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing. See State v. Lester Arnold Clouse, No. M2013-02633-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 7332181, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 23, 2014). Following a sentencing hearing on remand, the trial court imposed an effective fourteen-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender to be served consecutively to his sentences for other convictions. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s finding that he qualified as a persistent offender, the length of his sentence, and the imposition of partial consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm Defendant’s sentences for aggravated assault and assault, and we reduce Defendant’s sentence for resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor, to six months. We remand the case to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment on the resisting arrest conviction to reflect that the conviction is merged into Defendant’s aggravated assault conviction in accordance with the trial court’s prior findings.

The Defendant, Christopher Lynn Taylor, appeals as of right from the trial court’s order of total incarceration after his second violation of his six-year probationary sentence. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred in determining that he was a danger to society and by denying his request for drug treatment in the Community Corrections Program. Following our review, we discern no error. Thus, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, James Mellon, appeals as of right from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to present a viable defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Jennifer Hodges, pleaded nolo contendere to six counts of statutory rape, a Class D felony, and one count of solicitation of a minor, a Class E felony. Defendant was sentenced to four years for each count of aggravated statutory rape and two years for solicitation. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently for an effective four-year sentence. The effective sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation for four years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not granting her request for judicial diversion and that the trial court erred by sentencing her to the maximum sentences for her convictions.

The Petitioner, Jeffrey S. Petty, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  On appeal, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to move for a mistrial based on juror misconduct; (2) failing to file a motion to suppress evidence found in the Petitioner’s car; and (3) failing to include certain issues in his motion for new trial.  Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The January 12, 2017 order to which the Notice of Appeal is directed in this post-dissolution case did not adjudicate a pending motion to modify child support or the pending issue concerning whether the appellant “wrongfully” received benefits from the Social Security Administration for the benefit of the parties’ minor child based upon the step-father’s disability. As such, it is clear that the order appealed from does not resolve all issues raised in the proceedings below and is not a final judgment from which an appeal as of right would lie. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.