APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Saidrick Pewitte, requestspermission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. He seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence.The State opposes the application. Upon review, the Court hereby denies the application for the reasons stated below.

The Defendant, Lathan Word, appeals the trial court’s holding him in contempt, arguing primarily that the trial court’s summary contempt finding violated his right to due process, that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s contempt finding, and that the “cumulative circumstances” require that we vacate the contempt finding. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Mother and Father filed competing petitions for modification of the parenting plan. Finding a material change in circumstances and finding modification to be in the child’s best interests, the trial court named Father primary residential parent and awarded Father attorney’s fees. Mother appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Michael Stephen Baucom, Jr., pleaded guilty to multiple counts stemming from a series of burglaries under four different indictments. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender for his conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based on his two prior felony convictions, one of which was a 2015 conviction for theft of property valued over $1,000, a Class D felony at the time. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it sentenced him as a Range II offender because, in 2022 when he was sentenced, the theft for which he had been convicted was reclassified to a Class E felony, which would not be an appropriate basis upon which to classify him as a Range II offender. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In this health care liability action, the plaintiff asserted claims against multiple physicians
and medical entities. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of one
of the defendants, Dr. Flavius Dragila, based on expiration of the one-year statute of
limitations. The trial court also certified the judgment as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule
of Civil Procedure 54.02. The plaintiff has appealed. Upon our review and viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that a genuine issue of
material fact exists regarding when the plaintiff discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable
diligence should have discovered, both (1) that she had been injured by wrongful or tortious
conduct and (2) the identity of the person or persons whose wrongful conduct caused the
injury. We therefore vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr.
Dragila and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Julius W. (hereinafter “Julius” or “Respondent”), the biological father of Brykell F. (“Brykell”), appeals the termination of his parental rights to Brykell. On appeal he contends the trial judge should have recused herself, he was denied due process, and the evidence was insufficient to prove any ground for termination or that termination of his parental rights is in Brykell’s best interest. We affirm.

A judgment creditor domesticated a South Carolina judgment in Tennessee under the
Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. When the creditor moved to extend the
unsatisfied, domesticated judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69.04,
the judgment debtor objected on the basis that the foreign judgment had since expired and
was unenforceable under South Carolina law. The trial court granted the judgment
creditor’s motion and extended the domesticated judgment for an additional ten years. The
judgment debtor appealed. We affirm.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final
appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal requires us to determine whether the Plaintiff/Appellant commenced an action against the John Doe defendants within the applicable statute of limitations such that he may recover under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. The trial court granted the Defendant/Appellee’s motion to dismiss, holding that the applicable statute of limitations was one year and that Appellant’s claims expired due to his failure to serve the John Doe Defendants. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Sumner County jury convicted the defendant, Brandon Scott Whitehurst, of sexual battery and aggravated statutory rape. The trial court merged the defendant’s two convictions and sentenced the defendant to a term of eight years in confinement at 100%. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of unrelated sexual conduct and in prematurely sustaining a Rule 412 objection. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court; however, we remand the matter for imposition of a sentence for Count 1, sexual battery.

Following a trial, a Knox County jury found Defendant, Darius Artamus Smith, guilty of
first degree premeditated murder, burglary of an automobile, misdemeanor reckless
endangerment, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, abuse
of a corpse, evading arrest, reckless driving, running a stop sign, and improper passing.
The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life. On appeal, Defendant contends
that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when
it denied his request for a new trial based upon juror misconduct; and (3) the trial court
erred by admitting evidence of Defendant’s gang affiliation. Following a thorough review,
we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in finding that Appellant lacked standing to bring his lawsuit. Because Appellant suffered no legal injury, we affirm.

A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Quantavious Williams, of first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, carjacking, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment, and this court affirmed the judgments on direct appeal. The Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court denied his petition following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner raises the following issues: (1) whether trial counsel’s conduct amounted to a constructive denial of counsel warranting a presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic; (2) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance under the conventional Strickland v. Washington framework by failing to object to, or otherwise challenge, the State’s gang-related evidence; (3) whether trial counsel’s personal and professional conduct amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland; and (4) whether the post-conviction court erred by failing to make an explicit finding on his claim of cumulative error. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Bobbie Jean Delk, Defendant, was indicted for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, and domestic assault. Prior to trial, the State dismissed the domestic assault charge. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser-included offenses of reckless endangerment and aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery as charged. As a result of the convictions, she was sentenced to an effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions for aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated robbery. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The plaintiff insured filed a claim against his homeowners insurance company for damages
from an earthquake that occurred in 2018. The insurance company denied the claim, and
the insured subsequently filed this action against the insurer alleging claims of breach of
contract, fraud, and bad faith. The trial court conducted a jury trial spanning several days.
During trial, at the close of the plaintiff’s proof, the defendant insurer moved for a directed
verdict on all claims. The trial court directed a verdict on the fraud claim but allowed the
other claims to proceed. Following deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in the amount of $2,000,000. The jury found that the defendant had breached its
contract with the plaintiff but declined to find that the defendant had acted in bad faith.
The defendant insurer filed a post-trial motion, which was denied by the trial court. The
plaintiff timely appealed. Following our thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment in all respects. However, we deny the insurer’s request for an award of attorney’s
fees on appeal.

Because no final order has been entered in the underlying trial court proceedings, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this post-divorce action to modify child support, Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s: (1) calculation of Appellee/Father’s gross income; (2) determination that she was willfully underemployed; (3) imputation of income to her; (4) exclusion of summer work related childcare expenses from the child support worksheet; (5) denial of an upward deviation; and (6) denial of her request for attorney’s fees. Both parties seek an award of appellate attorney’s fees. Because we determine that the trial court improperly excluded certain sources of income from its calculation of Father’s gross income, we vacate Father’s child support obligation. We reverse the trial court’s denial of Mother’s attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s conclusions that Mother was willfully underemployed and its imputation of income to her as well as its exclusion of summer work-related childcare expenses and its denial of an upward deviation. Mother’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. Father’s request for same is denied.

In 2014, Husband filed for an annulment based on allegations of fraud by Wife; Wife denied the allegations but still sought a divorce. The trial court did not find any fraud that would invalidate the marriage and granted Wife the divorcein a 2016 decree. Husband appealed, and we affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Then in 2024, Husband filed a petition to reopen the case, asserting that he now had evidence to supporthis original fraud allegations.The trial court denied the petition, finding that Husband’s attempt to relitigate the issues raised in the first appeal was barred by res judicata. Husband has again appealed. Because Husband’s petition to reopen the case, by all accounts a motion for relief from a final judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, was untimely, we affirm. Wife is awarded her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this frivolous appeal.

Defendant, Juan Andres Rodriguez Torres, appeals the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and alternative sentencing following his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiff has been involved in multiple suits in connection with a foreclosure upon two properties she purchased in an office complex. Most of these actions were resolved adversely to her position prior to the circuit court’s issuance of its ruling in this case. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in the present case based upon res judicata principles, and it imposed sanctions. Plaintiff argues that the circuit court violated her due process rights in doing so and that it erred in the manner in which it ruled upon her pending motions. We affirm.

The Defendant, James Edward Allen, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court
jury of two counts of first degree felony murder; two counts of especially aggravated
robbery, a Class A felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, a Class B felony, for which he received an effective two consecutive
life sentences plus thirty years. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2018) (subsequently amended)
(first degree murder), 39-13-403 (2025) (especially aggravated robbery), 39-13-102
(Suppl. 2019) (subsequently amended) (aggravated assault), 39-17-1307 (2018)
(subsequently amended) (unlawful possession of a firearm). On appeal, the Defendant
contends that the trial court erred by failing to (1) grant his motion to suppress his
statements to law enforcement, (2) grant a continuance of the trial due to the unavailability
of a defense expert witness, and (3) instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser
included offense of first degree murder. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal follows post-divorce proceedings in which one parent asked for permission to relocate with her children while the other parent asked to modify the permanent parenting plan. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the request to relocate and modified the parenting plan. The relocating parent appeals, but due to deficiencies in her briefing, her issues have been waived.

Defendant, Darrell A. Grady, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony, and the trial court imposed a Range II, twelve-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction based on the facts and based on the trial court’s error in its instructions to the jury. He also claims the trial court’s denial of a community corrections sentence was erroneous and violated the federal and state constitutions against cruel and unusual punishment. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment.

The Defendant, Lee Allen Denton, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that (1) the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to provide a neutral and detached hearing body and instead applying a blanket policy of total revocation; (2) the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by increasing his release eligibi1ity percentage from sixty percent to one hundred percent through a judge-signed mittimus; and (3) the trial court failed to properly apply the required two-step analysis for probation revocation. After review, we affirm the trial court's finding that the Defendant violated his probation and the revocation of probation; however, the trial court failed to articulate sufficient findings regarding the consequences imposed, as required by State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Because the record is insufficiently developed for meaningful de novo review, we remand for entry of findings on the record consistent with Dagnan.