In 1998, the Petitioner, James Morrow, was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Petitioner appealed his convictions to this court, and we affirmed the judgments. State v. James Morrow, No. W1998-0583-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1529719 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Dec. 29, 1999), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 26, 2000). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after multiple hearings. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Errol Johnson, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for aggravated child neglect and criminally negligent homicide. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he was denied the right to represent himself at trial and that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to advise him that the State could introduce rebuttal evidence after he testified. Following our review, we affirm.

Defendants, Kavasia S. Bonds and Charles Allen Jones, along with a co-defendant Brian Davis, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault while acting in concert with two or more other persons. Following a jury trial, Defendants Bonds and Jones were convicted as charged, and the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to Defendant Davis. For their convictions, Defendant Bonds was sentenced to 14 years’ incarceration, and Defendant Jones was sentenced to 16 years. In this appeal as of right, Defendants Bonds and Jones both challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Defendant Bonds also asserts that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim’s eye and that the prosecutor improperly commented on Defendant Bonds’ silence at trial during closing arguments. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The employee alleged a work-related injury to her right shoulder when she moved a heavy package from a shelf. The employer initially provided medical care but later denied the claim, asserting the employee failed to give timely notice of her alleged injury. Following the filing of a petition for benefits, the employee requested an expedited hearing in which she sought temporary disability benefits, medical benefits, and attorney’s fees for the employer’s alleged wrongful denial of the claim. After the court set the date for the expedited hearing and the employer filed its response to the employee’s request for benefits, the employer requested a continuance, which the trial court denied. Following the expedited hearing, the trial court determined that the employee provided verbal notice within the fifteen-day statutory period, that her verbal notice excused written notice, and that the employer was not prejudiced by the employee’s delay in providing written notice. The court concluded the employee is likely to prevail at trial in showing she suffered an injury arising primarily out of the employment and awarded medical benefits but denied temporary disability benefits and delayed ruling on her request for attorney’s fees until a hearing on the merits of the claim. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

The defendant, Paul D. Page, pleaded guilty to two counts of sale of 0.5 grams or less of methamphetamine, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of nine years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request to serve his sentence on probation. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Major Smith, III wanted to be a firefighter. But he could not perform the critical firefighting skill of cutting a hole in a roof using a chainsaw. The Toledo Fire and Rescue Training Academy (the Academy) had a policy of dismissing recruits who were unable to perform this skill after the third attempt. Smith, however, was given nine chances to perform this skill; yet he failed every time. He was dismissed from the Academy. Smith argues that he was dismissed because of his race. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to defendants. We AFFIRM.

Following the denial of a suppression motion, the defendant, Frederick Dean Givens, pled guilty to possession of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. As a condition of his plea agreement, the defendant reserved the right to appeal two certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A). Upon our review, we conclude the issues are not dispositive of the defendant’s case, and the appeal is dismissed. Additionally, we remand the case for entry of judgment forms in counts 3 and 4.

A husband and wife sought to end their long-term marriage. After a prolonged trial, the court classified, valued, and equitably divided the marital estate. The court also ordered both parties to pay their own attorney’s fees. The wife filed a motion to alter or amend the final decree. Acknowledging errors in the initial decree, the court issued an amended divorce decree. Among other things, the court amended the value of the marital residence. Both parties raise issues on appeal. We find the evidence does not preponderate against the court’s classification of the husband’s interest in several parcels of real property as marital property. We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in amending the value of the marital residence, dividing the marital estate, or declining to award attorney’s fees to the wife. So we affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on Kierani C., the minor child (“the Child”) of Christopher A., Sr. (“Father”), and Keona C. (“Mother”). In August 2017, Mother surrendered her parental rights to the Child before the Shelby County Chancery Court (“chancery court”).1 At that time, the Child was placed in the legal custody and partial guardianship of Hannah’s Hope United Methodist Adoption and Pregnancy Counseling (“Hannah’s Hope”) and the physical custody of pre-adoptive parents, Katherine B. and Adrian B. In September 2017, Hannah’s Hope filed a petition in the chancery court to terminate Father’s parental rights to the Child. In January 2018, Father filed a petition to establish parentage in the Memphis and Shelby County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”), and in May 2018, Katherine B. and Adrian B. filed a petition in the Shelby County Circuit Court (“trial court”) to terminate Father’s parental rights to the Child. Upon motions filed by Katherine B. and Adrian B., all matters pertaining to the Child were subsequently transferred to the trial court, which consolidated the actions. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted both termination petitions upon its finding clear and convincing evidence of ten statutory grounds, including four abandonment grounds, specifically that Father had willfully failed to (1) visit the Child in the four months preceding the petition’s filing by Hannah’s Hope, (2) financially support the Child in the four months preceding each petition’s filing, (3) visit Mother during the four months preceding the Child’s birth, and (4) make reasonable payments toward Mother’s financial support during the four months preceding the Child’s birth, as well as six grounds applicable to a putative father, specifically that Father had failed to (5) pay a reasonable share of expenses related to the Child’s birth, (6) make reasonable and consistent payments for the Child’s support, (7) seek reasonable visitation with the Child, (8) file a petition to establish paternity within thirty days of receiving notice of alleged paternity, and (9) manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the Child, and, additionally, that (10) placement of the Child in Father’s legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the Child’s welfare. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the Child’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights. Father has appealed. We hold that under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(ii) and (iii), a putative father’s efforts made after the termination petition’s filing may be considered in reviewing the respective grounds involving failure to support the child and failure to seek or maintain visitation with the child. Therefore, having determined that clear and convincing evidence did not support the trial court’s findings that Father’s efforts to support and visit the Child made after the respective petitions’ filings were unreasonable or token, we reverse the trial court’s findings as to these two grounds. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Father’s parental rights in all other respects.

Week of August 30, 2021 - September 3, 2021