Petitioner, Merle Aaron Degroat, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to adequately consult with him prior to his guilty pleas to initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine and burglary of a motor vehicle. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Following a jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded a substantial verdict against the defendant for both compensatory and punitive damages. After the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, he appealed to this Court. The defendant now argues, among other things, that the trial court erroneously excluded his expert psychologist from testifying at trial and, further, that the trial court erroneously allowed certain prejudicial evidence against him to be admitted. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment entered in this matter and remand the case for a new trial.

A jury convicted the Petitioner, Freddie Lewis Osborne, of sale of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a Drug-Free School Zone (“DFSZ”), and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to thirty-two and a half years of incarceration. The Petitioner contested his conviction by direct appeal, post-conviction petition, and by petition for habeas corpus relief. Subsequently, he filed a “Petition for Sentencing Relief,” which the trial court denied by written order. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred because the Petitioner had: (1) sufficiently stated a claim for re- opening his petition for post-conviction relief; (2) stated a claim that the application of the DFSZ Act violated his right to equal protection; and (3) sufficiently stated a claim for the correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This appeal arose from a dispute involving an unpaid promissory note. In May 2014, Plaintiff filed its first suit for breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the case under Rule 41.02 for failure to prosecute. Opposing the dismissal, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion and stated the dismissal was neither “with nor without prejudice” and that Plaintiff was “welcome to refile.” Relying on the trial court’s statements, Plaintiff declined to appeal and filed a second action. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the second suit, arguing it is barred by res judicata. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion and denied Plaintiff’s subsequent Motion to Reconsider. We agree with the trial court’s dismissal of this suit and subsequent denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s decision and remand.

Grants & Denials List

May 4, 2020 - May 8, 2020

A Knox County jury convicted the defendants, Alfred Maron Williams, Eric Martel Abrams, and Jamie Paul Click, of twelve counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to sell heroin within 1000 feet of a drug-free school zone. The trial court merged these twelve convictions into one conviction for each defendant. The jury additionally convicted Defendant Williams of multiple other drug and firearms-related offenses. The trial court sentenced Defendant Williams and Defendant Click to effective sentences of twenty-five years of incarceration each, and it sentenced Defendant Abrams to twenty- one years of incarceration. All three defendants appeal. Defendants Williams and Click contend that the trial court erred when it failed to hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether a conspiracy existed. All three defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain their convictions for conspiracy. Defendant Click additionally contends that the trial court erred when it allowed him to be convicted of the common law crime of conspiracy. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Grants & Denials List

April 27, 2020 - May 1, 2020

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Aaron Hill, whether on his own accord or due to poor legal advice, decided not to attend a state court damages trial after being admonished by the state court judge that, if he failed to appear, “adverse things [were] likely [to] happen.” The judge was right. The court entered a final judgment against Hill in the amount of $3,417,477 and a finding that Hill’s actions “caused a willful and malicious injury.” Hill now seeks relief from the bankruptcy court’s holding that the debt is nondischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding because he is collaterally estopped from contending that the debt was not the result of “willful and malicious injury.” The bankruptcy court was correct to find that the state court damages judgment provides preclusive effect to the determination of the nondischargeability of Hill’s debt. We AFFIRM.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. The Everly Brothers are one of the most famous duos in popular American music history. When Dick Clark introduced them to sing Cathy’s Clown on his American Bandstand television show, he said the song “has a sound all its own”— one he called a “little unusual, [a] little strange, but very, very successful, and it’s done in the inimitable style of the fellas who have done so many other hits.” This dispute over the authorship of Cathy’s Clown is likewise a little unusual and a little strange. And, as we discuss, it is the jury’s obligation to sort it all out.

Each side to this appeal—Don Everly, on the one hand, and the successors-in-interest of his brother, the late Phil Everly, on the other—claims to have a copyright interest in Cathy’s Clown. Don maintains he authored the song by himself, but Phil’s successors contend the brothers wrote it together. Don sued Phil’s successors, seeking a declaration that Don was the sole author, while Phil’s successors counterclaimed for declaratory relief that both brothers were authors. The district court granted summary judgment to Don, finding that the claim of Phil’s co-authorship was barred by the statute of limitations because Don expressly repudiated Phil’s co-authorship, and thus triggered the statute of limitations, no later than 2011. Because there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether Don made such an express repudiation, we REVERSE.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regulates “debt collectors.” The Act defines “debt collector” generally to cover parties who operate a “business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts” or who “regularly collect[] or attempt[] to collect” debts owed another. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). But the Act adds a separate debt-collector definition “[f]or the purpose of section 1692f(6),” a subsection regulating the repossession of property. Id. This separate definition also covers parties who operate a “business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests.” Id. The distinction between these two definitions matters greatly: General debt collectors must comply with all of the Act’s protections; security-interest enforcers need only comply with § 1692f(6). The Supreme Court recently held that parties who assist creditors with the nonjudicial foreclosure of a home fall within the separate definition, not the general one. Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029, 1038 (2019). Yet Obduskey left open the possibility that these parties might engage in “other conduct” that would transform them from security- interest enforcers into general debt collectors (and subject them to all of the Act’s regulations). Id. at 1040.

In this case, Todd and Marcia Bates lost their condominium through a nonjudicial foreclosure after they fell behind on their condo-association dues. During the foreclosure process, the Bateses claim, the condo complex’s management company and its law firm violated various provisions of the Act. But the Bateses do not assert a violation of § 1692f(6), so their complaint needed to allege that the law firm and condo management company acted as general debt collectors, not security-interest enforcers, in the course of this foreclosure. We consider on appeal whether the complaint has identified enough “other conduct” to trigger Obduskey’s reservation and potentially transform these defendants into general debt collectors. Id. The district court thought not and granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendants. We affirm.