APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Jack E. Miller, a former City Manager of Crossville, filed this defamation action against Councilman Boyd Wyatt, based on Wyatt’s statement during a City Council meeting that Miller had been “discharged from City Manager up here because of misappropriating funds and not following procedures.” Wyatt moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that he was protected by legislative privilege under the common law and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201(b)(2) (2012), which statute provides that “[a]ll members of boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, and other governing bodies of any governmental entity . . . shall be immune from suit arising from the conduct of the affairs of such board, commission, agency, authority, or other governing body.” The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that Wyatt had immunity under § 29-20-201(b) because the alleged defamatory statement arose “from the conduct of the affairs of” the Crossville City Council. We agree with the trial court that Wyatt’s statement was made in the course of conducting the affairs of the City Council and, therefore, was protected by legislative privilege. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State trooper challenges his termination for the good of the service. We find substantial and material evidence to support the decision of the Civil Service Commission and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Yogonda Corley, was charged with five counts of aggravated sexual battery, with three counts being against the victim T.S. and two counts against the victim M.M., and seven counts of rape of a child, with three counts being against T.S. and four counts being against M.M. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of rape of a child, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was ordered to serve a total effective sentence of 75 years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, Defendant asserts that it was plain error for the trial court: 1) to admit into evidence a recording and transcript of statements by Defendant obtained by the use of a body wire worn by the mother of one of the victims; 2) to admit into evidence Defendant’s statements to the police following his arrest; 3) to admit into evidence the opinion testimony by a nurse practitioner that the victims’ statements were consistent with their medical examinations; and 4) not to sever the offenses against the two victims. Defendant asserts that the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to a reversal of his convictions. Lastly, Defendant categorizes another section of his brief as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, but then acknowledges that he chooses not to argue the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. With regard to the evidentiary issues, we conclude that the Defendant has waived consideration of the issues by his failure to contemporaneously object at trial. Also, Defendant failed to request severance of the charges as to each victim pre-trial. Because the alleged evidentiary issues and severance issue do not rise to the level of plain error, we decline review. We further conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority pertaining to the Defendant’s failure to demonstrate plain error relief on the evidentiary issues in this case. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s waiver of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, I write separately because the record provides ample evidence supporting each of the convictions in this case.

A Bedford County jury found the Defendant, Dejuan Koshief Roberts, guilty of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and being a felon in possession of a handgun. The trial court imposed an effective Range II thirteen-year sentence. The Defendant appeals claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the State violated the rules of discovery. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we conclude that no error exists. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The mother of six children and the father of one of the children appeal the termination of their parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights on three grounds, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistence of conditions, and willful abandonment by incarceration,and upon the determination that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The court terminated the father’s parental rights on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, willful abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit, and the determination that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother and father appeal. We affirm.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, James M. Smith, of driving under the influence (“DUI”), driving on a suspended, cancelled or revoked license, two counts of leaving the scene of an accident, and reckless endangerment. The trial court Defendant stipulated that he had been convicted of DUI on at least three previous occasions, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender, to six years in confinement followed by four years on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to continue his case; (2) the prosecutor made improper comments during opening and closing arguments; (3) a distraction during the jury deliberation likely caused a hurried and potentially incorrect verdict; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude no error exists in the judgment of the trial court. The trial court’s judgments are, therefore, affirmed.

Plaintiff filed a timely claim with the Division of Claims Administration, which did not resolve the claim within the statutory period. The claim was transferred to the Claims Commission, and Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to the Claims Commission Rules. Much later, the State amended its answer to allege fault by the City of Clarksville. Plaintiff filed suit against the City. The suit was dismissed because the trial court found that the “original complaint” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 was not filed within a year of the alleged injury. Plaintiff appealed. We reverse.

A defendant appeals the award of punitive damages arising from the death of a patient at an assisted living facility, which the defendant managed. We affirm the trial court’s review of the Hodges factors and the due process analysis relating to the punitive damage award. We also affirm the trial court’s directed verdict making the defendant liable for the actions of the assisted living facility’s employees. We must modify the amount of the punitive damage award by reducing it to comply with the amount the plaintiff requested in the ad damnum clause of their complaint.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Following a hearing, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of the father’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of (1) abandonment due to failure to visit and (2) failure to comply substantially with the permanency plan. The trial court further concluded that clear and convincing evidence revealed that termination was in the best interest of the children. The father appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Appellant, Marcus Smith, was convicted of one count of criminal attempt to commit rape of a child, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced appellant to nine years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm appellant’s conviction.

Defendant, Vernon Lavone Roberts, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for two counts of the sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone and two counts of the sale of more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone. Subsequently, Defendant entered a guilty plea to four counts of the sale of cocaine outside of a school zone. He received a sentence of twenty-years for each conviction, with three sentences to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the fourth conviction for an effective forty-year sentence as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas based on his assertion that the pleas were not voluntarily or knowingly entered. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Leonel Lopez, also known as Leonel Lopez Ramos, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty years as a violent offender in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) the service of a convicted felon as the grand jury foreman invalidated the indictment against him as a matter of law. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Daniel Eduardo Gonzalez, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to advise him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and that due process considerations should operate to toll the statute of limitations. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother/Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights on grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(1) as defined at Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), and persistence of conditions pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3). Mother also appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Because there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s decision, we affirm and remand.

This is a termination of parental rights case in which the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother to the Child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of Mother’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of persistence of conditions and mental incompetence and that termination of her rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Juan A. Hill, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that his judgment of conviction is void because it fails to reflect pretrial jail credit. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Cameron Cook, was convicted by a Knox County jury of attempted first degree murder and employing a firearm during an attempt to commit a dangerous felony for which he received an effective sentence of thirty years confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain either conviction and that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on voluntary intoxication. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Kevin Potter, appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him into confinement. Because the record supports the order, we affirm.

The petitioner, Kenneth J. Meyer, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2008 Bledsoe County Circuit Court conviction of voluntary manslaughter, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a direct appeal of an attorney disciplinary proceeding involving six complaints of professional misconduct. The trial court affirmed the hearing panel’s decision that the attorney had violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and should be disbarred from the practice of law. After review of the evidence presented and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Cory Austin Edison, challenges his jury conviction for aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and his effective twenty-year sentence alleging prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments; the admission of hearsay evidence without proper authentication at trial; and the improper imposition of consecutive sentencing. After reviewing the record and the relevant authorities, we conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentencing was not supported by the evidence and remand for a new sentencing hearing on that issue. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

The Petitioner, Herschel V. Lillard, Jr., appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 conviction for first degree felony murder and resulting life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying him relief because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the weight that should be given to a motorist’s performance on field sobrietytests in determining whether probable cause existed to arrest the motorist for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”). A law enforcement officer stopped a motorist who was driving in the wrong direction on a divided highway in Sevier County. Another officer administered several field sobriety tests, and arrested the motorist for DUI because the motorist had been driving in the wrong direction on a divided highway, smelled of alcohol, and admitted that he had been drinking. When the grand juryreturned a presentment charging the motorist with DUI and DUI per se, he filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Sevier County to suppress the evidence and to dismiss the charges. The trial court dismissed the charges on the ground that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest the motorist in light of his performance on the field sobriety tests. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. State v. Bell, No. E2011-01241-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3776695 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2012). We granted the State’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal and now hold that the officer had probable cause to arrest the motorist for DUI without a warrant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and the trial court, reinstate the charges, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings

For three separate indictments, the Defendant, Reuben Jacob Schutt, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property valued over $1,000, one count of evading arrest by motor vehicle, and one count of theft of property valued over $500. As part of the plea agreement, the parties agreed that the sentences for each offense would run concurrently, with the trial court to determine the length of the sentences and whether the Defendant should be given a Community Corrections sentence. The trial court denied the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years, to be served at 45% as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we conclude no error exists. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.