APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this health care liability action, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice upon finding that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A mother and a father challenge the juvenile court’s finding of two grounds for the termination of their parental rights and its finding that termination was in the best interests of the two children. We find that the juvenile court failed to make sufficient findings regarding one ground and vacate that ground. We affirm in all other respects.

The plaintiff sued a third party in North Carolina. During that litigation, the plaintiff learned that a Tennessee business might have information relevant to the lawsuit, so the plaintiff obtained a subpoena in North Carolina and, under the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, received a corresponding subpoena from the Circuit Court Clerk for Knox County, Tennessee. After serving the subpoena on an agent for the defendant, the plaintiff heard no response. He then brought a petition to enforce the subpoena against the company and its agent. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for Rule 11 sanctions, which the trial court granted. Because we find that the trial court did not adequately explain its decisions to dismiss the petition, grant attorney’s fees, and order Rule 11 sanctions so as to allow for meaningful appellate review, we vacate the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Paul Hayes, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“the Board”). Following a hearing, the Board denied parole to inmate Darryl Whisnant (“Whisnant”). The Board said that, going forward, Whisnant should complete his programming as recommended by his Strong R Assessment, namely by continuing his positive behavior, remaining drug free, and taking a few minutes each day for positive reflection. Whisnant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court upheld the Board’s decision. Whisnant appeals. According to Whisnant, the Board violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2)(B) by failing to state in writing how he could improve his chances of being released on parole. Whisnant argues that his recommended tasks were open-ended and impossible to complete. We find, as did the Trial Court, that the tasks given to Whisnant clearly were meant to be complied with up to his next parole hearing, at which time the Board can consider Whisnant’s compliance or non-compliance as part of its decision-making. The recommended tasks are neither open-ended nor impossible to complete. We hold that the Board complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2)(B). We affirm.

This action involves the dismissal of an appeal from the juvenile court regarding the custody of a minor child. We now affirm the dismissal of the appeal.

Mother appeals the trial court’s decision terminating her parental rights. She challenges the termination ground, which is severe child abuse, as well as the best interest determination. We have concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports both of these rulings by the trial court and, therefore, we affirm.

This matter is a petition for recusal of the trial judge pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The inadequacies of the petition require this Court to affirm the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion.

Ronald C. Wade brings this appeal challenging the Tennessee Claims Commission's denial of his motion to compel medical benefits. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because we conclude that the Claims Commission's two grounds for denying benefits are incorrect, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant, Carlos Ometrick Stasher, was convicted by a Putnam County jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and evading arrest.1 The trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the firearm found in his vehicle; that the trial court erred by allowing the State to present evidence of his prior possession of a firearm; and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach him with prior convictions. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior possession of a firearm and by allowing the State to impeach Defendant with a prior conviction for possession of a firearm. However, we conclude that the error was harmless and affirm Defendant’s convictions.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The father appeals the judgment of the trial court that terminated his parental rights to his minor child based on abandonment by willful failure to visit. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Gregory Livingston, of first degree premeditated murder for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction; (2) the admission of the autopsy report prepared by a non-testifying forensic examiner and testimony from a medical examiner who did not conduct the autopsy; (3) the admission of a video recording from a police officer’s body camera showing the victim’s girlfriend crying following the shooting; and (4) the admission of Defendant’s statement that he previously killed others. Upon review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Tracy Lebron Vick, pleaded guilty to second degree murder as a Range II offender and received a forty-year sentence. The Defendant filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily dismissed for the failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the court erred in denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute between Appellant Stacie Smith and Appellee Gary Meek.  In response to a plumbing issue in her rented home, Ms. Smith sought injunctive relief from the Knox County General Sessions Court requiring Mr. Meek to make certain repairs to the home.  The General Sessions Court granted the requested injunction, which Mr. Meek appealed to the Knox County Circuit Court.  Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Meek and dismissed Ms. Smith’s complaint.  Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Petitioner, Richard Crawford, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his Shelby County Criminal Court convictions of especially aggravated robbery, attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, and employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony, claiming that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and due process of law. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Todd Johnathan Grubb, appeals from the Meigs County Criminal Court’s
probation revocation of the nine-year sentence he received for his guilty-pleaded
conviction for possession with the intent to sell or to deliver one-half gram or more of
methamphetamine. On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in
confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, through counsel, seeks an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 from the trial court’s order entered on July 23, 2025, denying his motion to continue the trial scheduled for July 28, 2025. The attachments to the application include, among other materials, the Defendant’s motion to continue filed on July 9, 2025, and the trial court’s order denying that motion. Upon review of the application and its supporting documents, we conclude that the Defendant has not demonstrated grounds for extraordinary relief under Rule 10. Accordingly, a response from the State is not required, and the application is respectfully DENIED.

Following an alleged failure to properly assess whether a driver was impaired as part of an investigation of a car crash, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security fired a probationary employee trooper. The trooper filed suit, claiming that the Department actually fired her because of her age, sex, and national origin. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Department. The trooper appealed. We affirm.

Homeowners sought to void the foreclosure sale of their home, asserting that the bank did not advertise the sale as required. The trial court granted the bank summary judgment, concluding that the bank was not properly served and that the foreclosure had been properly advertised. The homeowners appeal. We affirm based on failure of service of process.

Robert A. Martin (“Father”) and Donna Saas (“Daughter”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”), seeking the removal of Robert E. Martin (“Son”) as trustee of the Martin Irrevocable Trust (“the Trust”) and making claims of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of assets against Son and his wife, Karen Martin (“Son’s Wife”) (collectively, with Son, “Defendants”). The Trial Court struck Defendants’ defenses and denials in their answer given their failure to provide an accounting of the Trust’s assets despite the Trial Court’s orders to do so.  After a hearing on damages, the Trial Court awarded Daughter half of the asset that was supposed to have been put in the Trust, half of the funds that Son had converted from Father’s accounts, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and lost wages.  Defendants appeal.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Petitioner Derrick Darnell Moore and Co-Petitioner Demichael Tyrone Moore1 were jointly tried and convicted of first degree murder, among other offenses, for which they were each sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment. Thereafter, they filed separate petitions for post-conviction relief, alleging that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the Petitioners raised three shared claims, arguing that their respective trial lawyers (1) failed to call key witnesses to testify; (2) failed to seek suppression of cell phone data; and (3) failed to raise or preserve an objection to hearsay for the later appeal. In addition to these shared claims, Petitioner Derrick Moore presented two individual grounds for relief, contending that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that his lawyer (1) failed to effectively communicate and investigate the case; and (2) failed to fulfill promises made during opening statements. Co-Petitioner Demichael Moore raised one additional individual claim, asserting that his lawyer was ineffective in failing to object to testimony regarding his history of incarceration. Finally, both Petitioners asserted that the cumulative prejudicial effect of these alleged deficiencies entitled them to post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioners appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.

Following a trial, a Weakley County jury found Defendant, Antwon Dejuan Wiley, guilty of aggravated robbery and theft under $1,000, for which the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court should have merged his conviction for theft under $1,000 with the aggravated robbery conviction based upon double jeopardy principles. Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences but remand for the merger of his conviction for theft under $1,000 into his aggravated robbery conviction and entry of amended judgments reflecting the merger.

The Petitioner, David Anthony Avery, acting pro se, appeals from the summary dismissal of his third motion pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking correction of his sentence. As grounds, the Petitioner asserts his sentence is illegal because attempted murder, a crime which he was convicted of, does not exist in Tennessee. Because the Petitioner’s motion failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After slipping and falling on accumulated snow and ice at a restaurant, a man filed a premises liability lawsuit against the owner of the restaurant. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner based on its finding that the owner owed no duty to protect the man from accumulated snow and ice because the incident occurred during an ongoing winter storm. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Defendant appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated rape, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and arguing that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment based on either pre-indictment delay or the failure to follow the mandates of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, that post-indictment delay deprived him of the right to a speedy trial, that the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial following the victim’s in-court outburst, that the trial court violated his right to counsel, and that the trial judge should have recused himself. Upon review, we discern no error, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.