APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant limited liability company terminated the plaintiff’s employment as Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer and revoked his 120 voting and common
membership units in the company. The plaintiff brought a claim against individuals
belonging to the company’s board of managers, alleging that the defendant board members
had breached their fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing by revoking his 120
membership units. The plaintiff sought no less than $120,000.00 in compensatory
damages, the value of the 120 membership units as of May 5, 2021, and $480,000.00 in
punitive damages. On July 13, 2022, the board of managers adopted a corporate resolution
ratifying the plaintiff’s ownership of 120 membership units in an effort to resolve the
plaintiff’s claim against the individual board members. Consequently, the defendant board
members filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, contending that the
plaintiff’s claim against them was rendered moot by the corporate resolution. The trial
court granted the defendant board members’ motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim
against them based on the doctrine of mootness. On appeal, the plaintiff posits that the
board members failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that they had rendered his
claim moot. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant board members
failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the corporate resolution fully redressed
the plaintiff’s claim for relief against them. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial
court for further proceedings.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellant, Luis Santiago, entered a guilty plea to
attempted aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and aggravated stalking and received a
total effective sentence of seven years and two months with the manner of service to be
determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the
Appellant’s request for probation and ordered the seven-year-two-month sentence to be
served in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court
abused its discretion in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of separate judgment forms reflecting
dismissal of counts two, four, and five.

This case arose from a legal malpractice action filed against a lawyer who had represented
the plaintiff in an employment discrimination and wrongful termination action. The
plaintiff provided no expert testimony to support his claims against the lawyer.
Determining that the plaintiff had not presented proof to support his claim and that the
defendant had presented evidence to negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim,
the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Discerning no error,
we affirm.

The Defendant, Demario Antijuan Jones, pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of an
automobile and three counts of driving while license was cancelled, suspended, or revoked,
and received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days at seventy-five
percent service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing
the maximum sentences and by denying him an alternative sentence. We affirm the trial
court’s judgments.

A mother and father filed a personal injury action in 2022 on behalf of their adult daughter, who was allegedly injured in a car accident in 2007 when she was four years old. The daughter was not represented by counsel, and her parents purported to represent her. The trial court dismissed the daughter’s claims due to the running of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the daughter argues (through her mother/conservator) that the dismissal was in error because she lacks mental capacity. Because the daughter did not file suit pro se and was not represented by counsel, we conclude that the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff Loring Justice brought this health care liability action against Thomas Hanaway, Ph.D. (“Defendant”), a psychologist who provided family counseling and therapy to Plaintiff’s minor child and the child’s mother, Kim Nelson (“Mother”). Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that he was entitled to immunity as a court-appointed psychologist and testifying witness. Defendant provided therapy as a result of an order by the Roane County Juvenile Court in long-running litigation between Plaintiff and Mother. The Juvenile Court’s order stated that “there will be a transition from the current therapist, Dr. Nancy Brown, to a new therapist to be selected by the Mother.” The issue is whether the trial court correctly deemed Defendant to be a court-appointed therapist and granted Defendant summary judgment on grounds of immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Robert Vernon Gouge, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child,
one count of attempted rape of a child, and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The
trial court imposed an effective sentence of ninety-nine years. On appeal, the Defendant
challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of aggravated
sexual battery in count four and his conviction of rape of a child in count five.1 He also
argues that his effective sentence of ninety-nine years is excessive. We respectfully
disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Uniform Commercial Code provides a mechanism for secured creditors to give notice to the world of their security interest in debtors’ property as collateral for debt by filling out a form for a financing statement and posting it on the website for Tennessee’s Secretary of State. In this case, that system was weaponized. Collectively, the defendants filed over a hundred bogus financing statements on the Secretary of State’s website regarding over forty Tennessee residents, including judges, mayors, public officials, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and ex-spouses. The online financing statements falsely claimed liens for the defendants’ alleged security interest in the victims’ property as collateral for millions of dollars in fictitious debt. All were done for the apparent purpose of vexing and harassing the victims. All of the defendants were convicted of multiple counts of filing a lien without a reasonable basis, a Class E felony, and forgery of at least $250,000, a Class A felony. We granted permission to appeal in this case to address the forgery convictions. We hold that the defendants’ conduct fits within the statutory definition of forgery. We also hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the apparent value associated with the fraudulent financing statements was over $250,000. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant, Michael Marcell Brown, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court
jury of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate robbery;
conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; and attempt to perpetrate
aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(2) (2018) (subsequently
amended) (first degree felony murder), 39-12-103(a) (conspiracy) (2018); 39-13-402(a)
(2018) (aggravated robbery); 39-12-101(a) (2018) (criminal attempt). The trial court
sentenced the Defendant to life for first degree murder and to six years for each of the two
remaining convictions. The court imposed the sentences concurrently to each other but
consecutively to the Defendant’s sentences in another case. On appeal, the Defendant
contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court
erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statement, (3) the court erred in
excluding hearsay evidence, (4) the court erred in admitting a photograph exhibit because
it was not properly authenticated, and (5) the cumulative effect of multiple trial errors
requires relief. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Mother was not present when the trial court found that four grounds for termination were
proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that termination was in the best interest of
the child. The trial court denied the oral motion to continue made by Mother’s counsel.
Mother appeals the denial of the continuance, as well as the findings of grounds and best
interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm (1) the trial court’s denial of Mother’s
motion for a continuance; (2) the finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of
abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, and
persistence of conditions; and (3) the finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights was
in the best interest of the child. We conclude that the trial court failed to make appropriate
findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the ground of failure to manifest an
ability and willingness to assume custody of the child and vacate that ground. Accordingly,
we vacate in part and affirm in part.

This case involves a complaint before the Tennessee Claims Commission.  After a year of no action on the part of the claimant, the State moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.  The Claims Commission granted the motion, and the claimant now appeals.  For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the dismissal of the claimant’s case. 

The Petitioner, Darius Alston, appeals from the Lauderdale County Circuit Court's denial
of post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of first degree premeditated
murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated
robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm and his sentence of life imprisonment. On
appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect
of counsel's multiple instances of deficient performance. We affirm the judgment of the
post-conviction court.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendants’ convictions for forgery. I agree with the majority that the Defendants’ conduct fits within the statutory definition of forgery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39- 14-114(b)(1)(B). I write separately to dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support sentencing the Defendants for forgery as a Class A felony. Based on the text of the applicable statutes, I would hold that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the UCC-1s had a fair market value of at least $250,000. 1 I would reverse the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to the value associated with the Defendants’ forgery convictions.

This case involves enforcement of an arbitration award arising from a defaulted promissory note. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for breach of contract and enforcement of a promissory note. Ultimately, the parties participated in binding arbitration per the terms of their agreement. The plaintiff obtained an award in arbitration against the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion in the trial court to confirm and enforce the arbitration award. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant now appeals. Having reviewed the record, we determine that the defendant has waived his argument on appeal and affirm the trial court’s order.

In August of 2018, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) secured an
ex parte order placing B.B.,1 the minor daughter of Wendy Dawn Hancock, Defendant, in
the custody of DCS after a referral prompted an investigation. During the span of several
days, Defendant and B.B. stayed at both a hotel in Lebanon and Defendant’s attorney’s,
Connie Reguli’s (“Ms. Reguli’s”) home in Brentwood without ever being formally served
with the ex parte order. Police eventually located B.B. and Defendant in Brentwood.
Defendant was indicted for one count of custodial interference, in violation of Tennessee
Code Annotated section 39-13-306. Ms. Reguli was also charged with several offenses for
her actions. Defendant sought a dismissal of the indictment before trial. The trial court
denied the motion. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of custodial interference.
She was sentenced to two years on supervised probation. The trial court denied the motion
for new trial; Defendant appealed. On appeal, Defendant argues that: (1) the indictment
should be dismissed because it fails to allege all of the elements of custodial interference;
(2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the elements of custodial interference;
(3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the ex parte custody order was “valid
and enforceable”; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; and (5)
Tennessee should adopt an advice of counsel defense for specific intent crimes. Because
the trial court improperly instructed the jury essentially removing one of the elements of
the offense and lowering the burden of proof, we reverse the judgment of the trial court
and vacate Defendant’s conviction. We remand the case to the trial court for any further
proceedings that may be necessary.

The Defendant, Jeremiah Sweet, appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court’s
revocation of his probation and execution of his four-year sentence for aggravated statutory
rape, simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and theft of property valued
at $1000 or less. Although the Defendant admits to violating the terms of his probation,
he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve the balance of
his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm.

A mother appeals the chancery court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on
the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support and severe child abuse. The
mother also challenges the chancery court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The petitioners
challenge the chancery court’s dismissal of persistence of conditions ground for
termination. We reverse the court’s decision to terminate based on abandonment by failure
to visit and support, but we affirm the court’s decision in all other aspects.

The defendant, Philip Mainer, appeals his conviction of aggravated cruelty to animals that
he received following a bench trial before the Sullivan County Criminal Court. On appeal,
the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Upon
review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Sevier County jury convicted Defendant, Gabriel Enrique Turcios, of first-degree
premeditated murder. At sentencing, the jury found that the murder was especially
heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that
necessary to produce death, and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility
of parole. On appeal, he claims the evidence is insufficient to support the application of
the aggravating circumstance for the sentence. After a thorough review of the record and
the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the approval of a site plan.  William Foehring, Janice Foehring, William Best, Mary Beth Best, Ron Terrill, and Sandra Terrill (“Petitioners”) filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari against the Monteagle Regional Planning Commission (“the Commission”) and RBT Enterprises, LLC (“RBT”) (collectively, “Respondents”) in the Chancery Court for Marion County (“the Trial Court”).  Petitioners alleged that the Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily, and capriciously in approving the site plan at issue because the underlying zoning for one of the parcels is invalid.  The Trial Court ruled in favor of Respondents.  Petitioners appeal.  In a parallel declaratory judgment action case arising out of the same facts, we determined that the underlying zoning is valid, which is dispositive of this appeal.  We affirm the Trial Court.

Anthony D. Martin, Petitioner, was convicted of rape of a child and sentenced to 40 years
in incarceration. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v.
Anthony Martin, Alias, No. E2018-01066-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 2714379, at *1 (Tenn.
Crim. App. June 28, 2019), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 11, 2019). Petitioner sought
post-conviction relief based on several alleged instances of ineffective assistance of
counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief and dismissed the petition after a hearing.
This appeal followed. After a review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

A Robertson County jury convicted Kemontea Dovon McKinney (“Defendant”), a juvenile at the time of the offenses, of aggravated robbery, premeditated first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and theft of property valued at over $10,000. The trial court merged the murder convictions and merged the theft conviction into the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the murder conviction and eight years for the aggravated robbery conviction. This appeal concerns whether Defendant’s pretrial statement to detectives was voluntary, whether Defendant validly waived his Miranda rights, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress and admitted Defendant’s pretrial statement into evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the intermediate court erred when it stated that an involuntary confession claim is “inextricably linked” to a Miranda-waiver claim, such that the two inquiries can be considered together. We also granted the State’s application to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in determining that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. After review, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred with respect to the issues raised by the State. We reiterate that the voluntariness test is distinct from the test for Miranda waiver, despite similarities between the analyses. After separately considering both questions, we conclude that Defendant’s overall statement was voluntary and his Miranda waiver was both knowing and voluntary. Additionally, we conclude that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. We reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s judgments.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on five grounds: (1) abandonment by
failure to visit the children; (2) abandonment by failure to financially support the children;
(3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (4) persistence of conditions;
and (5) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the children. Discerning no
reversible error, we affirm.

This is an appeal arising from allegations of fraud and breach of contract in a dispute
surrounding a stock transfer agreement that, among other things, provided for the transfer
of controlling interest in a law firm from attorney Robert Hill to attorney Ricky Boren.
Whereas many claims were resolved at summary judgment, others were tried before a jury
and resolved in the Plaintiffs’ favor. The parties present a plethora of issues for our
consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court
and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a petition for common law writ of certiorari in which the petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), appeals a disciplinary conviction for “unauthorized financial transactions activity” by the Disciplinary Board at the Turney Center Industrial Complex. The respondents, the State of Tennessee and several governmental officials, filed a joint motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petition was not properly verified as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-8-104 and the petitioner failed to pay the mandatory initial filing fee pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-807. The chancery court granted the motion and dismissed the petition with prejudice on the grounds “the statutory requirements of T.C.A. § 27-8-104 and § 41-21-807 are mandatory and have not been met in this case, and failure to comply results in a defective filing by the Petitioner[.]” This appeal followed. We reverse the decision to dismiss based on the filing fee requirements under Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-807. Nevertheless, we affirm the dismissal of the petition with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the petitioner’s failure to file a petition that complied with the verification requirements under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-8-104 within 60 days of the entry of the judgment of which the petitioner seeks review.