APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, John Jack Lynch, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief in which he argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  After a thorough review, we determine Petitioner has failed to show clear and convincing evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Wesley Jones, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first degree murder conviction and resulting life sentence. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in numerous respects and that the post-conviction court erred by denying his request for a DNA expert and for DNA testing. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur with most of the majority opinion, but write separately to express my opinion that Detective Lundy and the unnamed uniformed patrol officer unconstitutionally seized Petitioner by handcuffing him and taking him to the police department and placing a leg shackle restraint on him inside the interview room. Although testimony by law enforcement officers was at best equivocal (and probably better described as “evasive” in a reading of the transcript) about restraints used on Petitioner, two things are clear: the officers dutifully followed police department “policy” and the policy dictated that “witnesses” be transported while handcuffed via marked patrol cars to interviews at the police station.

Mother filed a petition to enroll and enforce a Mississippi divorce decree in Tennessee requesting the trial court to order Father to continue paying one-half of the parties' child's private school tuition and costs. Father opposed Mother's request and instead argued that the parties' property settlement agreement did not mandate private schooling, that it was reasonable for him to withhold consent to private schooling, and that, in the alternative, the costs associated with private schooling should be apportioned based on the parties' incomes. The trial court found in favor of Mother on all issues. Father appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm

A Sevier County jury found Defendant, Bobby Lynn Dockery, guilty of forgery. He was sentenced to serve 5 years at 45% as a Range III offender. Defendant alleges on appeal that his conviction for forgery violates the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. Defendant further argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a jury case arising from Appellant's healthcare liability claim against Appellee doctors. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctors. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing a pictograph to be passed to the jury and admitted into evidence. Appellant also asserts that the trial court should have charged the jury with a special instruction on damages. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother/Appellant appeals the termination of her parental rights to two minor children on the statutory grounds of: (1) persistence of the conditions that led to the removal of the children from Appellant’s home; and (2) substantial noncompliance with the requirements set out in the permanency plan. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of her parental rights is in the best interests of the children, and she raises several issues concerning the admission of evidence. We conclude that the state did not establish the predicate for termination of Appellant’s parental rights on the ground of persistence of conditions; however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

Petitioner, Michael Lamar Gaines, filed a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.  Because he failed to comply with the statutory requirements for seeking discretionary review of the dismissal of his motion, this Court has no jurisdiction over the case.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

In 2012, the Petitioner, Gregory Eidson, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and attempted second degree murder, and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of three and eight years, respectively, to be served on Community Corrections.  The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied.  This Court affirmed the denial.  Gregory Eidson v. State, No. M2012-02482-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 6405782, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 6, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014).  In 2014, the Petitioner’s Community Corrections sentence was revoked, and the trial court ordered the Petitioner to serve his eleven-year sentence in confinement.  After filing several motions and petitions, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which he also termed a second motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, and a motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.  The trial court entered an order dismissing the petition and motion.  We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The defendant, Jimmy Wilson, was indicted for theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-103, after unlawfully receiving of $5,875.72 in travel reimbursements from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Following trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the same. On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, James M. Grant, appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he claimed that he received an illegal sentence after a 1998 guilty plea to one count of facilitation of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder.  Upon our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, DeMarco Waters, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of premeditated first degree murder; three counts of attempted first degree murder, Class A felonies; attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; and four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, Class C felonies. The defendant was sentenced to an effective term of life plus seventy-seven years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 6 to indicate that the conviction offense is a Class A felony.

Catherine McCulley, Jean Abbott, Steven Abbott, Jerry Abbott, Larry Abbott, Diane West, and Geraldine Abbott (“Plaintiffs”) sued Mark Abbott and Stephanie Abbott (“Defendants”)1 with regard to an alleged easement located across real property in Sevier County, Tennessee. During the pendency of the suit, Catherine McCulley died and a motion was made to substitute her four children as party plaintiffs. Without benefit of a hearing, the Chancery Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) entered an order allowing the substitution. The case then was tried, and the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that “the Plaintiffs, the heirs of Elmer Abbott, have an easment across the property of the Defendant, Mark Abbott . . . .” Defendants appeal to this Court raising several issues. We find and hold that the motion for substitution and the Trial Court’s order granting the motion failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25, which deprived Defendants of an opportunity to be heard prior to entry of the order allowing substitution. We, therefore, vacate both the April 22, 2015 order allowing substitution of parties and the June 5, 2015 judgment holding that “the Plaintiffs” have an easement, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

The petitioner, Torian Dillard, was convicted in 2006 of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to twenty years. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Torian Dillard, No. W2007-00911-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 3342952, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 11, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 2, 2009). He then filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel had been ineffective in that counsel failed to properly investigate the facts of the case or to provide a sufficient reason to dismiss a prospective juror and that the trial court erred in allowing the victim to sit facing the jury, with her back to the petitioner. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief; and, following our review, we affirm that order.

A Lawrence County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, John Apfel aka Raymond DeBartolomies, of theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000.  The trial court imposed a sentence of four years.  On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing, and the amount of restitution imposed.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal arises from the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion for recusal. Having reviewed the trial court's ruling on the motion for recusal pursuant to the de novo standard of review required under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Mark Rollins, pleaded guilty to first offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant and reserved as a certified question the propriety of the vehicle stop leading to his arrest.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner, Michael Lamar Gaines, filed a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.  Because he failed to comply with the statutory requirements for seeking discretionary review of the dismissal of his motion, this Court has no jurisdiction over the case.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, Dannie Brumfield, appeals as of right from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation and order of confinement for six years.  The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve two additional sentences concurrently with the remainder of his original sentence.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Anthony Harville, was convicted of three counts of the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance and received an effective sentence of fifteen years.  Defendant appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence.  After a review, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

Defendant, Mandricuss Lashon Robertson, pled guilty to twelve counts of aggravated burglary and an agreed-upon effective sentence of twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining twenty-three counts of the presentment.  The trial court denied an alternative sentence after a lengthy sentencing hearing.  Defendant now appeals.  After a review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence involving incarceration.  Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Defendant, Randall Boaz, appeals his Giles County conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon.  His single issue on appeal is a claim of insufficient evidence that he used his vehicle as a deadly weapon.  Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal stems from a foreclosure. Jorge A. Alfonso and Madelyn Alfonso (“Plaintiffs”) defaulted on their mortgage on real property owed to CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”). Plaintiffs wanted to effectuate a short sale in order to avoid foreclosure. However, certain real estate investors (“Defendants”) attended the foreclosure sale, bid on, and purchased the property. Plaintiffs sued Defendants and Citi in the Chancery Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”), alleging in part that Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and Citi were engaged in discussions to complete a short sale but purchased the property anyway. The Trial Court granted Citi’s motion to dismiss finding that Citi had the right to pursue foreclosure even if it was in talks with Plaintiffs to conduct a short sale. Plaintiffs do not appeal that order. The Trial Court later granted a motion to dismiss claims against the remaining Defendants. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find and hold that Plaintiffs have stated no cause of action against the remaining Defendants. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Defendant, Marcus Hampton, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition to suspend the remainder of his effective four-year workhouse sentence for his convictions of aggravated assault and evading arrest. Because he has failed to show facts supporting an alteration of the sentence in the interest of justice, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Rodney Love, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence.  The Appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Rule 36.1 relief was not available because the alleged illegal sentence had long ago expired.  Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s Rule 36.1 motion.