APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A long haul waste carrier was cited for violating safety regulations by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (the “Division”). The waste carrier informed the Division that it had corrected the alleged violations and received an automated reply that the Division had ceased operations due to the federal government’s suspension of funding. The waste carrier intended to contest the citations but failed to notify the Division of its intent within the statutory twenty-day period. Once the Division was operating again and the waste carrier informed the Division of its intent to contest the citations, the Division responded that the waste carrier had waited too long and that the citations had become final orders by operation of law. The waste carrier filed a petition for judicial review in chancery court, and the trial court remanded the case back to the Division to allow the waste carrier to seek relief pursuant to Rule 60.02(1) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The Division appealed, claiming the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Kimberly Mangrum, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her convictions for first degree felony murder, attempted first degree premeditated murder, aggravated burglary, and especially aggravated kidnapping and her effective life sentence.  The Petitioner contends that (1) she received the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal and (2) counsel’s ineffective assistance deprived her of due process of law.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, John Freitas, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of assault and domestic assault, both Class A misdemeanors, and sentenced to consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) his convictions for assault and domestic assault violate double jeopardy; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we conclude that it violates double jeopardy for the defendant to receive punishments for assault and domestic assault. Therefore, we order that the defendant's convictions stand but that amended judgments be entered showing that the simple assault conviction merges into the domestic assault conviction for imposition of one sentence.

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in which Defendant argues that summary judgment was improper because a dispute of material fact exists regarding her affirmative defenses. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 Interlocutory appeal. Upon further review, we have determined that none of the issues certified for interlocutory appeal are properly before us. Accordingly, we vacate our order granting interlocutory appeal and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court revoked Ashley Kelso’s (“the Defendant”)probation and ordered her to serve the balance of her sentence.  After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Defendant violated her probation or by ordering that she serve her sentence in incarceration.  The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Petitioner, Adam Clyde Braseel, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and assault and sentenced to an effective sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.  State v. Adam Clyde Braseel, No. M2009-00839-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3609247, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 17, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).  On direct appeal, this Court merged the aggravated assault and attempted first degree murder convictions and corrected several clerical errors in the judgments.  In all other respects, the convictions and sentences were affirmed.  Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing, among other things that trial counsel should have filed a motion to suppress the pre-trial identification of Petitioner as the perpetrator, should have challenged the eyewitness identification of Petitioner at trial, and should have requested a jury instruction on eyewitness identification.  After a hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief.  The State appealed.  After a thorough review, we reverse and remand the judgment of the post-conviction court.  All of Petitioner’s covictions are reinstated and his petition for post-conviction relief is dismissed.

The Defendant, Khalid M. Mohssin, entered an open guilty plea to conspiracy to sell and deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-103; -17-417. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court determined the Defendant would receive a five-year sentence, as a Range I, standard offender, and denied alternative sentencing. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence to five years and by denying his request for a suspended sentence. Following our review, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s sentencing decision. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

The Defendant, Tonya Lavette Christopher, pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI), first offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401. The Defendant's plea agreement preserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of the police encounter which preceded her arrest. Following our review, we conclude that the police officer's detention of the Defendant was justified upon reasonable suspicion of obstructing a roadway in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-307. Accordingly, the DUI judgment is affirmed.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father and Stepmother filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother to the child. The trial court found that the grounds of abandonment for willful failure to visit, willful failure to support, and conduct demonstrating a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals. We reverse the finding of abandonment for willful failure to support but affirm the other grounds for termination and the finding that termination is in the best interest of the child. The termination of Mother’s parental rights to the child is therefore affirmed. 

The Petitioner, Kenneth Sherron, pleaded guilty to facilitation of kidnapping. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Petitioner appeals, asserting that the post-conviction court erred when it summarily dismissed the petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This is an appeal by permission, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. A Henry County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Tina Lynn Szabo, for various charges arising out of a traffic stop based upon the Defendant's erratic driving and the subsequent blood test results obtained by a search warrant for a blood draw. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test results obtained as a result of a search warrant, and the trial court suppressed the blood test results, ruling that an error within the warrant and an untimely return rendered the search warrant invalid. The State filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted by the trial court. We granted the Rule 9 appeal, and the State asserts that the trial court erred when it granted the Defendant's Motion to Suppress. After review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves the condemnation of property by a utility district. The trial court entered an order of possession vesting title of the property in the utility district and reserved the issue of just compensation for a jury trial. Prior to trial, the utility district filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the expert appraisal and testimony of the landowner‟s expert witness. The trial court permitted the expert to testify over the objections of the utility district. At the conclusion of the three-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of $417,000 for the seven-acre parcel at issue, which was the same value suggested by the landowner‟s expert witness. After the trial court denied the utility district‟s motion for a new trial, the utility district timely filed a notice of appeal. The utility district maintains on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to exclude the testimony of the landowner‟s expert witness, and it also argues that the jury verdict is not supported by material evidence. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

A jury found that the Defendant, Brian Adams, was guilty of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of ninety years. The Defendant asserts that his convictions should be overturned on the basis of insufficient evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated rape and received a sentence of twenty-five years as a multiple rapist. The Defendant now challenges his sentence as illegal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, asserting that the trial court erred by failing to make a factual finding of his previous rape conviction and that a disparity exists between the length of his sentence and other shorter sentences for more serious convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Defendant's motion to correct his sentence.

This appeal involves a dispute between unmarried parents regarding a residential parenting schedule for their minor child. Following a hearing, a juvenile court magistrate ordered a structured parenting schedule permitting Father to exercise parenting time with the child during the first, third, and fifth weekends of each month. Father requested a rehearing before the juvenile court judge. The case was reheard, and the juvenile court judge ordered a similar parenting schedule permitting Father to exercise parenting time during the second, fourth, and fifth weekends of each month. The juvenile court also ordered Father to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,500. On appeal, Father takes issue with the parenting schedule and award of attorney’s fees ordered by the juvenile court. Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments presented, we affirm the juvenile court’s parenting schedule; however, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand the case to the juvenile court for a determination as to the amount and reasonableness of the attorney’s fees incurred.

This appeal involves a dispute between unmarried parents regarding the modification of a residential parenting schedule for their minor child. Following a hearing, a juvenile court magistrate modified the parties’ existing parenting schedule to permit Father to exercise parenting time with the child during the first, third, and fifth weekends of each month. Father requested a rehearing before the juvenile court judge. The case was reheard, and the juvenile court judge ordered a similar parenting schedule permitting Father to exercise parenting time during the second, fourth, and fifth weekends of each month. The juvenile court also ordered Father to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,500. On appeal, Father takes issue with the parenting schedule and award of attorney’s fees ordered by the juvenile court. Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments presented, we affirm the juvenile court’s parenting schedule; however, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand the case to the juvenile court for a determination as to the amount and reasonableness of the attorney’s fees incurred.

Because the order appealed does not comply with Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the order is not a final judgment. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction and this matter must be dismissed.

The defendant, Alberto Conde-Valentino, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for severance of co-defendants, that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to two of his children. The children’s mother’s rights were previously terminated. In 2010, the older child was adjudicated dependent and neglected due to his mother’s drug use; the father was incarcerated at the time. In 2012, both children were adjudicated dependent and neglected and removed from their mother’s home after an altercation involving the father and another child resulted in father’s arrest and mother’s arrest for drug use. In 2015, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition seeking to terminate the father’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of persistence of conditions and mental incompetence. The juvenile court found that both grounds were proved by clear and convincing evidence and also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father’s rights was in the children’s best interests. The father appeals. We reverse.

The defendant, Terrance Stepheny, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to seventeen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by not sentencing him at the lower end of his range. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the defendant’s conviction offense as aggravated robbery, which was omitted.

This appeal arises from a finding of dependency and neglect. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging that M. D. (“the Child”) was dependent and neglected based upon alleged sexual abuse by her father, D. D. (“Father”). The Child’s mother, S. D. (“Mother”), filed a cross-petition to intervene, and she sides with DCS on appeal. After a trial, the Circuit Court for Jackson County (“the Trial Court”) found the Child to be both dependent and neglected and a victim of severe abuse by Father. Father appeals to this Court. We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the Trial Court, and the evidence rises to the standard of clear and convincing to prove the Child is dependent and neglected, as well as a victim of severe abuse. We further find no reversible error in the Trial Court’s considering Father’s drug use and troublesome courtroom behavior in assessing his credibility. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

James A. Long and Patricia Long (“Plaintiffs”) sued Charles D. Ledford and Vivian Ledford (“Defendants”) with regard to a promissory note. After a trial, the Circuit Court for Unicoi County (“the Trial Court”) entered a Final Order granting Plaintiffs a judgment against Defendants for $21,296.01. Defendants appeal to this Court. The record on appeal contains no transcript and no statement of the evidence. We must assume that the record had it been preserved would contain sufficient evidence to support the Trial Court‟s factual findings. We, therefore, affirm