APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Atlanta Pearl Hardy, was convicted of second degree murder in 2004 and now appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Upon review of the record, this Court affirms the trial court's denial of relief under Rule 36.1.

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in a Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) premises liability case. Appellant was exiting Jackson-Madison County General Hospital/Appellee when she was hit by an automatic door, fell, and sustained a broken femur. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from suit under the GTLA. Appellant argued that Appellee failed to make a reasonable inspection of the automatic door, so as to discover the alleged dangerous or defective condition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, finding that the condition was not dangerous or defective, the condition was latent, and Appellee had no actual or constructive notice of the condition. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Michael Harris, appeals from an order of the trial court denying his petition to suspend the remainder of his sentence. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying the petition. We affirm the order of the trial court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

This is a will contest. The affidavit attached to the purported will was signed, in the presence of the testator, by two witnesses. At the hearing on the will contest, both witnesses and the notary public testified as to the validity of signatures on the purported will. The trial court held that the will and accompanying affidavit were not in strict compliance with the statute and denied admission of the will to probate. On appeal, the proponent of the purported will argues that the will satisfied the recent statutory requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 32-1-104(b) such that the signatures of both witnesses were integrated into the will. Concluding that the witnesses’ signatures were integrated into the will pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 32-1-104(b), and that the other statutory requirements were met, we reverse the trial court’s ruling.

Defendant, Montreal Lyons, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Defendant contends that his sentence is illegal because the trial court imposed the sentence for offenses that occurred in 2002 under the 2005 amendments to the sentencing act without an ex post facto waiver signed by Defendant. The State responds that the trial court properly dismissed Defendant’s motion because he failed to state a colorable claim for relief. We agree with the State. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jerry Phillips, appeals the denial of his request for post-conviction relief from his four convictions for aggravated sexual battery. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s jury selection procedures in this case, which deviated from Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 24, as recognized in State v. Frausto, 463 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2015), amounted to ineffective assistance and that appellate counsel was likewise ineffective for failing to argue for plain error review of this issue on appeal. He further submits that the jury selection process violated his rights to due process of law, to a fair and impartial jury, and to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Appellant’s parental rights to the minor child by order of July 15, 2016. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. However, Appellant failed to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-124(d) (Supp. 2016) in that she failed to sign the notice of appeal. Because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

The majority opinion dismisses this appeal due to the failure of the appellant, Makayla B., the child’s mother, to sign the notice of appeal as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d). The majority has concluded, “[i]n the absence of full compliance with the statutory requirements, this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal.” I recognize that the majority opinion is based on a prior Court of Appeals decision, but I respectfully disagree with the decision and the notion that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d) is jurisdictional or that the statute compels this court to dismiss appeals in parental termination cases when the parent fails to sign the notice of appeal without affording the parent the opportunity to cure the defect.

Petitioner, Charzelle Lamontez Swafford, was convicted of first degree murder, four counts of attempted first degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous offense. His convictions and effective sentence of life plus fifty-six years were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Charzelle Lamontez Swafford, No. M2014-00421-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 1543251, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 2, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 12, 2015). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing. On appeal, we determine that Petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s actions. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The defendant, Lucas Potter, pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery, attempted robbery, and theft of property under $500. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-401, -402, 39-14- 103. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective five-year sentence of split confinement with community corrections after 270 days of service. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court failed to properly consider his request for judicial diversion and erred in allowing the State to present rebuttal proof at the sentencing hearing. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Cleveland Frazier, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2015 guilty pleas to possession of less than 0.5 gram of cocaine in a school zone and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and his effective eleven-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The Defendant, Jonathan C. Buckner, was convicted by a Houston County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony.  See T.C.A. § 39-14-103 (2014).  The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years’ confinement and ordered that his sentence be served consecutively to a sentence in an unrelated case.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by failing to provide witnesses and prospective jurors proper instructions before jury selection, (2) by admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence, (3) by denying his two motions for a mistrial, (4) by overruling defense objections during the prosecutor’s opening statement and closing argument, and (5) during sentencing.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of the appellant to his minor children. The only notice of appeal filed by the appellant within the time provided in Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure for the filing of a notice of appeal did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-124(d), which states: “Any notice of appeal filed in a termination of parental rights action shall be signed by the appellant.” Because this notice of appeal was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, this appeal is dismissed.

The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claim for failure to prosecute and for failing to respond to affirmative defenses. The trial court also denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. Because disposition of litigation on the merits is favored over procedural dismissals, we reverse. 

This appeal involves a claim for attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses incurred by a third-party defendant in a wrongful death action. The third-party plaintiff filed the third-party complaint against the third-party defendant seeking indemnity. A jury found both the third-party plaintiff and third-party defendant at fault for the death in the underlying action, but because the third-party plaintiff was allocated more than 50% of the fault, the jury determined that the third-party plaintiff was not entitled to indemnification. The third-party defendant filed a post-trial motion for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending the third-party action. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Although we conclude that it did not lack subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm the denial of the third-party defendant’s motion.

This case involves residential property that was purchased after a foreclosure. The purchaser filed this detainer action against the original homeowners, who refused to vacate the property. The general sessions court ruled in favor of the purchaser, and after a de novo trial in circuit court, the circuit court ruled in favor of the purchaser as well. We do the same. The decision of the circuit court is hereby affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to suppress evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of their house. The trial court found that, although Defendant Angela Hamm was on probation at the time of the search and was subject to warrantless searches as a condition of her probation, the search was invalid because the police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the search. On appeal, the State contends that (1) the search was supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) the search was reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances; (3) Angela Hamm consented to the search by agreeing to the warrantless search probation condition; and (4) the warrant search was valid as to Defendant David Lee Hamm under the doctrine of common authority. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her two children on the grounds of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. The trial court also found clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

I concur in the majority opinion, but I write separately to express my views regarding the additional issues that arise from warrantless, suspicionless searches of probationers conducted pursuant to a condition of probation. I believe that at a minimum, reasonable suspicion is required before the State may conduct a warrantless search of a probationer who is subject to a warrantless search requirement as a condition of probation. While neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Tennessee Supreme Court have addressed whether something less than reasonable suspicion would permit searches of probationers, both courts have addressed the issue as it related to parolees. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006); State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 (Tenn. 2009).

This appeal concerns termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Warren County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Dara C. (“Mother”) to her minor children Jayden R., Kara C., and Jaxson C. (collectively, “the Children”). DCS also sought to terminate the parental rights of Jonathan C. (“Father”) to Kara C. and Jaxson C. After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children and Father’s parental rights to Kara and Jaxson. Mother and Father appealed. DCS argues that Mother’s and Father’s failure to sign their notices of appeal renders this appeal jurisdictionally deficient. We agree that Mother’s and Father’s failure to sign their notices of appeal as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d) renders this appeal jurisdictionally deficient, and it is dismissed on that basis. Even if the appeal were not jurisdictionally deficient, we would, given this record, affirm the Juvenile Court’s judgment terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Defendant, Ronald E. McCarter (“Defendant”), seeks to appeal from a ruling of the Trial Court which does not constitute a final judgment. Specifically, the ruling to which the Notice of Appeal is directed in this case did not resolve the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to the Plaintiff, Deborah J. Meadows (“Plaintiff”), nor did it fully resolve Plaintiff’s claims against Tiffany Sharp. As such, it is clear that there is not a final judgment from which an appeal as of right would lie. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal

I dissent from the majority opinion for reasons which I will explain. The majority is correct that there is a split of authority as to whether reasonable suspicion must exist before a search may be made pursuant to a probation order providing that, as a condition of probation, the probationer is subject to warrantless searches. See Jay M. Zitter, Validity of Requirement That, as Condition of Probation, Defendant Submit to Warrantless Searches, 99 A.L.R.5th 557 (2002). However, I do not believe it is necessary for this court to make a determination as to this question, for it is clear that the officers had reasonable suspicion to search Angela Hamm’s residence.

The majority opinion dismisses this case due to the failure of Mother and Father to sign the notice of appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d).  I recognize that the majority opinion is based on a prior Court of Appeals decision, but I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion.

This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of the appellant to her minor child, Kendall H. The only Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant was signed only by her attorney. The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal arguing that the Notice of Appeal was insufficient to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction because it did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-124(d), which states: “Any notice of appeal filed in a termination of parental rights action shall be signed by the appellant.” The absence of appellant’s signature on the notice of appeal deprives us of jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed.