APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Michael Wojnarek, appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original sentence in confinement, arguing that the trial court erred by considering evidence found in violation of the Fourth Amendment and by failing to make adequate findings in support of its decision. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal involving the termination of parental rights.  The trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and the fathers of the children on the following grounds: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; (3) persistent conditions; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children.  Only the mother appeals. We affirm.

Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal concerns whether a municipality must have a general plan for development before it can exercise its zoning power. William Foehring, Janice Foehring, William Best, Mary Beth Best, Ron Terrill, and Sandra Terrill (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued the Town of Monteagle, Tennessee (“the Town”) and RBT Enterprises, LLC (“RBT”)1 (collectively, “Defendants”) for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Marion County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiffs challenged the rezoning of a certain parcel which allowed for the development of a truck stop near their homes. Plaintiffs argued that the zoning ordinances at issue, 05-21 and 12-21, were invalid because the Town had no comprehensive or general plan in effect. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. We hold, inter alia, that no comprehensive or general plan was required before the Town could exercise its zoning powers. It was sufficient that the Monteagle Regional Planning Commission (“the Commission”) transmitted to the Town Board of Mayor and Aldermen (“the Board”), the Town’s chief legislative body, the text of a zoning ordinance and zoning maps, which comprised the zoning plan. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Defendant, Miron D. Johnson, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of evading arrest,
a Class D felony; misdemeanor evading arrest; felony reckless endangerment; and driving
on a revoked license, fourth offense. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence
was insufficient to sustain his convictions for felony evading arrest and felony reckless
endangerment. Relative to his felony evading arrest conviction, the Defendant specifically
argues that his conduct did not create a risk of death or injury to others. For his felony
reckless endangerment conviction, the Defendant argues that his vehicle was not used as a
deadly weapon and that the threat of death or serious bodily injury was not imminent. The
Defendant further contends that the trial court erred by imposing fines without making
findings regarding the Defendant’s ability to pay. Following our review, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

Following a bench trial, the Appellant, Charles Rutledge, was convicted of second-degree murder, for which he received a sentence of twenty-eight years’ imprisonment. In this appeal, the Appellant presents two issues for review: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction, and 2) whether the State failed to disclose witness information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Upon our review, we affirm.

The defendant, Isaias Rodriguez, was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and
sentenced to forty years at 100% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant
argues: (1) there was insufficient proof of the forensic interviewer’s years of experience as
required by statute for admission of the victim’s forensic interview; (2) the trial court erred
in failing to make specific findings regarding the qualifications of the child advocacy center
as required by statute for admission of the victim’s forensic interview; and (3) the evidence
is insufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction without the improperly admitted
forensic interview of the victim. After review, we affirm the trial court’s finding regarding
the interviewer’s years of experience and determine the defendant has waived his issue
regarding the qualifications of the child advocacy center. In addition, we determine that
the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. Therefore, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights as to two of her children.
The trial court found as grounds for termination abandonment for failure to provide a
suitable home, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to
assume legal and physical custody of the children. The trial court also found that
termination was in the best interest of both children. We find clear and convincing
evidence supports the trial court’s findings as to the grounds for termination and the best
interests of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant, Latosha Starks-Twilley, of
first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court imposed a sentence of life
imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the
State to ask the defense expert prejudicial questions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing
the State to ask the defense expert whether the Defendant met the criteria for antisocial
personality disorder; (3) the trial court erred in prohibiting the defense from asking its own
expert about whether the Defendant lacked the capacity to form the mens rea required for
the offense; (4) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s request for the pattern jury
instruction on reckless homicide; (5) the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs
of the deceased victim into evidence; and (6) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her
conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I have the privilege to join the majority’s well-reasoned opinion in large part. For example, I agree that a post-conviction petitioner cannot raise a stand-alone claim seeking dismissal based upon an alleged legal insufficiency of the convicting evidence. I also agree that the Petitioner here has not shown that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the victim’s testimony and the in-court identification.2 Finally, I agree that trial counsel rendered deficient performance in failing to raise and argue that the accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated. Where I respectfully part ways with the majority concerns its analysis of whether the Petitioner has shown that the reliability of his verdict was undermined by trial counsel’s failure to argue a lack of corroboration.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The Defendant, Tinisha Nicole Spencer, appeals her jury conviction for driving under the
influence, fifth offense. The trial court sentenced her to two years suspended after service
of 150 days in jail. On appeal, the Defendant challenges whether the State established an
unbroken chain of custody for her blood sample, whether the sentence enhancement counts
were void because they included the dates of the prior offenses rather than the dates of
conviction as required by statute, and whether the sentence enhancement counts vested the
trial court with jurisdiction to sentence her as a multiple offender because they incorporated
a facially void judgment. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Tavarius Goliday, was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court
of first degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and reckless
endangerment with a deadly weapon and received an effective sentence of life in
confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by overruling
his objection to evidence about a gang-related tattoo on his hand and that the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the
parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case for correction
of the judgment of conviction as to count one, first degree murder.

Appellants filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, seeking judicial review of
Appellee Fayette County Board of Zoning Appeals’ grant of a special exception to other
Appellees for the construction of a solar farm. The trial court denied the writ of certiorari.
Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an administrative property tax appeal concerning the classification of real property
for ad valorem tax purposes. This action originated with a taxpayer appeal of the property
valuation by the Sevier County property assessor. On appeal, the administrative law judge
re-classified the property as commercial, resulting in a tax assessment of 40% of the fair
market property value. The Assessment Appeals Commission reversed the classification.
The trial court affirmed the reversal. We now reinstate the commercial classification.

This is an administrative property tax appeal concerning the classification of real property
for ad valorem tax purposes. This action originated with a taxpayer appeal of the property
valuation by the Sevier County property assessor. On appeal, the administrative law judge
re-classified the property as commercial, resulting in a tax assessment of 40% of the fair
market property value. The Assessment Appeals Commission reversed the classification.
The trial court affirmed the reversal. We now reinstate the commercial classification.

The Petitioner, Eric Foster, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his
petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for one count of aggravated rape,
two counts of rape, one count of statutory rape, and one count of exhibition of harmful
material to a minor. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred
by dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. The Petitioner argues that
he is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations because he pursued his
rights diligently and there were extraordinary circumstances preventing his timely filing.
We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this post-conviction appeal, the Petitioner-Appellant, Gregg Merrilees, seeks relief from his original convictions of aggravated robbery and robbery in concert with two or more persons, for which he received an effective sentence of sixteen years’ imprisonment. He subsequently filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, which was denied by the postconviction court. The Petitioner now appeals and raises a stand-alone challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. In addition, the Petitioner argues four grounds in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim: (1) trial counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence based on the lack of accomplice corroboration in a motion for judgment of acquittal or on direct appeal; (2) trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on accomplice corroboration; (3) trial counsel’s failure to object based on speculation to the hotel clerk-victim’s accusation that the Petitioner was involved in the offenses based on the hotel clerk-victim’s “gut”; and (4) trial counsel’s failure to object to “the unconstitutional show-up” identification of the Petitioner by the hotel clerk-victim at trial. Upon our review, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce involving the trial court’s award of parenting time and requiring parental restrictions. The trial court entered a permanent parenting plan in which Mother and Father were awarded equal parenting time, with Father being named the primary residential parent. The trial court also ordered that neither Father nor Mother were to consume alcohol in the presence of Child. Father appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order. We further award Mother her attorney’s fees on appeal and remand to the trial court for a determination of the amount awarded.

The Petitioner, Christopher Bostick, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for rape of a child and
aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court
erred by denying his claims that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We
affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the petitioners proved four statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree and affirm.

The Defendant, Joshua X. Beasley, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of
various drug offenses committed within a drug-free zone and received an effective fifteenyear
sentence to be served at one hundred percent in confinement. Subsequently, the trial
court granted his motion to resentence him pursuant to the amended version of the Drug-
Free Zone Act and imposed an effective twelve-year sentence to be served at thirty percent
release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support his convictions and that the trial court erred by initially sentencing him under the
previous version of the Act. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’
briefs, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions but remand for resentencing as to his
conviction in count four, delivering fentanyl, and correction of the judgment.

Kenneth J. Mynatt (“Plaintiff”) served as the vice president of the local chapter of his union. He filed an action for malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy against the union, the local chapter, and several individuals associated with the union. He alleged that after he publicly criticized the union’s financial waste, its leadership accused him of misusing union funds. Those accusations led to his indictment on two felony charges. In the resulting criminal case, the State filed a motion to retire the charges for one year, and those charges were ultimately dismissed after the year passed. In Plaintiff’s complaint for malicious prosecution, he stated that he continued to maintain his innocence, that he refused any plea deals, and that the criminal case terminated in his favor because it was ultimately dismissed. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the retirement and dismissal of the criminal charges was not a favorable termination on the merits. Thus, they argued his complaint was missing an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the underlying criminal proceedings terminated in his favor. The defendants sought review from this Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals did not apply the correct standard for determining what constitutes a favorable termination for the purpose of a malicious prosecution claim. We conclude that the prohibition in Himmelfarb v. Allain, 380 S.W.3d 35 (Tenn. 2012), precluding a factintensive and subjective inquiry into the reasons and circumstances leading to dispositions in civil cases also applies to dispositions in criminal cases. We hold that plaintiffs can pursue a claim for malicious prosecution only if an objective examination, limited to the documents disposing of the proceeding or the applicable procedural rules, indicates the termination of the underlying criminal proceeding reflects on the merits of the case and was due to the innocence of the accused. Under this standard, Mr. Mynatt did not allege sufficient facts for a court to conclude that the dismissal of his criminal case was a favorable termination. We therefore reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgment granting the motion to dismiss.

This appeal concerns a Memphis police officer’s application for a line-of-duty disability
pension. Torrance Taylor (“Taylor”) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Shelby
County (“the Trial Court”) seeking judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Law
Judge (“the ALJ”) for the Board of Administration of the City of Memphis Retirement
System denying his application for a line-of-duty disability pension. In 2016, Taylor
injured his left knee in the course of his duty while detaining a suspect. Afterwards, Taylor
retired from the police force and was recommended for ordinary disability benefits. The
ALJ ruled that, based on the opinions of physicians, Taylor’s disability stemmed from a
chronic condition in his left knee and not from his employment. Thus, the ALJ denied
Taylor’s application for a line-of-duty disability pension. The Trial Court upheld the ALJ’s
decision. Taylor appeals to this Court. He argues among other things that, but for his 2016
injury in the line of duty, he would not be disabled. The evidence reflects that Taylor
worked without restriction before the injury in 2016, which ended his police career. We
find that the ALJ’s decision was unsupported by substantial and material evidence. We
further find that the ALJ’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Taylor is entitled to a
line-of-duty disability pension. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.

The majority thoughtfully examines the evidence in the present case and may even
have reached a better understanding of the actual cause of Officer Torrance Taylor’s injury
than was arrived at by the City of Memphis Pension Board and the hearing officer.
However, in its analysis, the majority has engaged, at least in my view, in a reweighing of
the evidence that exceeds the scope of this court’s authority when reviewing such decisions
under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.