APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Cody Lee Wilson, appeals his Robertson County Circuit Court jury convictions of sexual battery, rape, and two counts of incest, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Zion Robinson, for rape of a child, a
Class A felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Petitioner entered an open guilty
plea to the substantially reduced offense of sexual battery, a Class E felony. Following a
sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s requests for judicial diversion and
probation and sentenced Defendant to serve two years incarcerated. Additionally, the trial
court ordered Defendant to register with the Sex Offender Registry. Defendant appeals,
arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion. We conclude
that Defendant has waived appellate review of his sentence by failing to prepare an
adequate record and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. We remand this
case, however, for the entry of a corrected judgment form reflecting the indicted offense of
rape of a child.

The Petitioner, Kelly Lee Pitts, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction
relief from his attempted first degree murder and possession of a firearm during the
commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony convictions and his effective
forty-eight year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that (1) the post-conviction
court erred by summarily dismissing the petition after determining it was untimely and
(2) he failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Anthony Carpenter, of intentionally
evading arrest in a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to one year in
confinement. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it
denied his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (3)
the trial court erred when it allowed the State to impeach the Defendant with a prior
conviction; (4) the trial court erred when it denied his request to sit at counsel table; and
(5) the trial court erred when it admitted the audio portion of the body camera recordings
of the incident. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Anthony Tremayne Cartwright, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated assault and domestic assault, for which he received consecutive sentences of fourteen years and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. He alleges that trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present witnesses deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Rico Reed, of one count of aggravated sexual
battery. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years in prison. On appeal,
Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because there
was no evidence produced at trial that the contact was for sexual arousal or gratification.
After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A temporary injunction restrained a former employee of an accounting firm from committing acts of harassment against the firm or any of its principals, employees, or agents. An Internet news article reported the former employee’s perspective on his history with the firm. The former employee posted a link to the article on his Facebook page and circulated the article to clients of the firm and others. The firm filed a petition for criminal contempt, alleging that the former employee violated the restraint on acts of harassment against the firm. The trial court held the former employee in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying the injunction. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The Defendant, Gregory S. Clark, appeals from his guilty pleaded convictions for
aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony.
See TCA §§ 39-13-102 (aggravated assault) (2018) (subsequently amended), -14-403
(aggravated burglary) (2018) (subsequently repealed and replaced by T.C.A. § 39-13-1003
(Supp. 2021)). The Defendant agreed to an effective six-year sentence as a Range I
offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, the
Defendant contends that the court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Tyrone T. Roach, entered a nolo contendere plea to one count of sexual battery. The trial court imposed a diverted one-year sentence. As part of the plea, Defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) as to whether the four-year delay between the grand jury presentment on the sexual battery charge and his arrest on the presentment violated his rights to a speedy trial and due process. The State contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a diverted sentence. In the alternative, the State argues that Defendant did not reserve the certified question properly, and even if the certified question were reserved, the trial court did not violate his right to a speedy trial. Defendant has not responded to the State’s contention regarding jurisdiction. We conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

We granted this interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s order denying the State’s
motion to admit the preliminary hearing testimony of one of the victims who had
subsequently, and unrelatedly, been killed, and granting the Defendant’s motion to exclude
said testimony. The Defendant argued that the trial court should exclude the victim’s
former testimony because the State withheld exculpatory information prior to the
preliminary hearing in violation of the Defendant’s rights to confrontation, due process,
and a fair trial. The trial court agreed with the Defendant, and the State appeals. Following
our review, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings.

Defendant, Eugene W. Jones, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probationary
sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon with a previous
conviction for a violent felony and simple possession of marijuana. Following our review
of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm
the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves an appeal from the trial court’s appointment of a permanent conservator to oversee the person and property of the appellant, Tara Young. Ms. Young’s brother, Daniel Wood, petitioned for a conservatorship after he discovered that Ms. Young had been admitted to the Vanderbilt Adult Psychiatric Hospital following a car accident. After several months of proceedings and a two-day trial, the trial court concluded that a conservatorship was warranted and appointed a conservator for the person and property of Ms. Young. The trial court further determined that medical decisions should remain vested with Ms. Young. Ms. Young timely appealed. On appeal, Mr. Wood did not file a brief in response to Ms. Young’s appellate brief. Upon review, we conclude that Ms. Young’s brief lacks a statement of the issues presented for review and therefore does not comport with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(4). Inasmuch as Ms. Young has not presented any issues on appeal as required by Rule 27, we dismiss this appeal.

A Madison County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Cornell Poe, for driving on a
revoked license, unlawful use of a license plate, improper registration, and violation of the
financial responsibility law. The defendant filed a suppression motion, arguing the lack of
signage on the one-way street deprived him of due process. The trial court granted the
defendant’s motion, and the State appealed, asserting the defendant’s seizure was
supported by probable cause. Upon our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and
pertinent authorities, we agree with the State, reverse the judgment of the trial court and
remand the case for further proceedings.

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant physician in a health care liability action asks us
to review two pretrial orders. In the first, the trial court excludes evidence that a nonparty
physician was the cause-in-fact of the claimant’s injuries because the defendant never
amended his answer to include that allegation, as required under Rule 8.03 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure as applied in George v. Alexander, 931 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1996).
Because he does not allege that the nonparty physician was negligent, the defendant asks
us to modify our holding in George and reverse the trial court’s order. We respectfully
decline to do so. In the second pretrial order on appeal, the trial court considered Tennessee
Code Annotated section 29-26-119, a provision that partially abrogates the common law
collateral source rule in health care liability actions. It held that section 29-26-119 does
not abrogate the collateral source rule under the facts of this case. We agree with the trial
court that the collateral source rule remains in effect in this case. We affirm both of the
trial court’s pretrial rulings.

This interlocutory appeal involves two pretrial orders. I concur with the holding
and analysis of the majority as to the first pretrial order involving Rule 8.03 and George v.
Alexander, 931 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1996). However, I respectfully dissent from the
majority’s holding and analysis as to the second pretrial order involving Tennessee Code
Annotated section 29-26-119 and the collateral source rule. This issue requires the Court
to interpret the meaning of section 29-26-119. I would hold that, when section 29-26-119
governs damages in a health care liability action, the statute’s clear language contemplates
only “actual economic losses suffered . . . paid or payable,” thereby abrogating the
collateral source rule. Thus, I would reverse the trial court’s pretrial order.

This appeal arises from a divorce after a very brief marriage. The parties had one young son at the time of the divorce. The trial court declared the parties divorced, named the mother primary residential parent, largely adopted her proposed parenting plan, and calculated child support after imputing income to the mother based on a finding of voluntary underemployment. The father appealed and raises three issues, primarily arguing that he should be named primary residential parent or at least have additional parenting time. The mother raises a host of issues regarding various other provisions of the parenting plan. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court as modified.

In 2020, Ebony Robinson (“Defendant”) pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide by
intoxication, aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and driving without a license. The trial
court imposed a ten-year sentence largely suspended to probation with periodic weeks of
confinement for the first three years. The State appealed the sentence, arguing that a 2017
amendment to the probation eligibility statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-
303, prohibits defendants who are convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication from
receiving any form of probation. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State and
reversed the trial court, ordering Defendant to serve the full sentence in confinement. The
intermediate court concluded that the amended probation statute expressly prohibits
probation of any kind, including periodic or split confinement, for criminal defendants
convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication. After reviewing the relevant statutes, this
Court affirms the Court of Criminal Appeals and holds that the clear and precise language
of the 2017 amendment to the probation eligibility statute prohibits all forms of probation
for a defendant convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication. Accordingly, we affirm
the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Defendant, Christopher Alan Peters, was convicted by a McMinn County jury of
aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II offender to ten years
to serve in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence to
sustain his conviction because the State presented no evidence that he entered the residence
with the intent to commit a theft. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of
the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2021, the Defendant, Timothy Eugene Wells, pleaded guilty to sexual assault by an
authority figure, as a Range II offender, in exchange for a sentence of six to ten years with
the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the
trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years of incarceration. On appeal, the
Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve his
sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this post-divorce case, Father appeals the trial court’s grant of sole decision-making authority over the Children’s non-emergency health care and religious decisions to Mother. Mother requests attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. Because there is no evidence to support an award of sole decision-making authority over religious decisions, we reverse the trial court’s order awarding Mother same. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed, and Mother’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is denied.

In this appeal, we address whether a Tennessee resident may sue an Alabama corporation in a Tennessee court for alleged breach of contract and breach of warranty pertaining to its construction of a custom lake house in Alabama. Tennessee resident Roger Baskin hired Pierce & Allred Construction, an Alabama corporation with its principal place of business in Alabama, to build a house on a parcel of land in Alabama. Mr. Baskin supplied the architectural plans and some of the materials, all sourced from Tennessee, and the parties communicated throughout the project from their respective states. However, all of Pierce & Allred Construction’s activities on the project occurred in Alabama. Mr. Baskin ultimately became dissatisfied with the quality and expense of the construction work, and he filed suit in the Davidson County Chancery Court. Pierce & Allred Construction moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the corporation lacked the “minimum contacts” with Tennessee that due process protections require. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The trial court granted the motion, finding that the events relevant to the claims occurred in Alabama and that the corporation’s contacts with Tennessee were minor and attenuated. The Court of Appeals reversed, looking to recent decisions from this Court, see Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460 (Tenn. 2020), and the United States Supreme Court, see Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (explaining that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff’s claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts). We granted permission to appeal. Based on our review, we have determined that Pierce & Allred Construction’s contacts with Tennessee were not such that the corporation reasonably should have anticipated being haled into a Tennessee court to answer this suit. In making this determination, we conclude that certain contacts with Tennessee did not reflect that the corporation purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in Tennessee, while certain other contacts were not sufficiently related to Mr. Baskin’s claims to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Thus, we hold that Mr. Baskin failed to establish a prima facie case of the minimum contacts necessary for a Tennessee court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Alabama corporation. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court dismissing Mr. Baskin’s complaint.

The Defendant, Eric Martell Small, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of evading
arrest in a motor vehicle endangering others, a Class D felony; driving while license
revoked, a Class A misdemeanor; violation of the financial responsibility law, a Class C
misdemeanor; and violation of the open container law, a Class C misdemeanor. On appeal,
the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony and that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Based on our review, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

economic-loss doctrine bars recovery in tort for purely economic losses in certain
situations. In this case, the Court is asked to apply that doctrine to bar tort claims brought
by a subcontractor against a general contractor, where the relationship between the
subcontractor and general contractor is governed by a contract. The majority opinion cabins
the economic-loss doctrine to products liability cases and refuses to extend it to contracts
for services for fear that doing so would require that we also create various exceptions. I
respectfully disagree with that holding. The core rationale underlying the economic-loss
doctrine—to create a boundary line between tort and contract law to ensure that parties can
allocate risks and responsibilities as they see fit—applies equally to cases involving
contracts for services. And to the extent that any exceptions to the rule would be needed,
their creation would not be nearly as difficult or messy as the majority predicts. I would
hold that the economic-loss doctrine applies here and precludes the subcontractor from
recovering punitive damages and pre-judgment interest.

This is a breach of contract action involving an agreement for purchase and sale of
improved real property. Upon the sellers’ motion for summary judgment and following a
hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the sellers. Following an
evidentiary hearing to determine damages, the trial court entered a judgment directing the
buyers to pay $45,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in attorney’s fees. The
buyers have appealed. Determining that genuine issues of material fact preclude
summary judgment, we reverse.

The appeal arises from a conservatorship proceeding. At issue is whether the trial court
erred by quashing the appellant’s subpoena of the conservator’s records on the basis of res
judicata, rendering the document subpoena moot as a matter of law. We have determined
that a final judgment had not been rendered on the merits concerning the services rendered
by the conservator; thus, res judicata was not applicable. Accordingly, the judgment of the
trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.