For the week of January 1, 2024 - January 5, 2024

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Da’Rell Winters sought to appeal the district court’s decision denying his application for habeas relief. But he did not receive the district court’s notice in time to appeal. When he eventually did file a notice of appeal on his own behalf, he explained the reason for his delay without formally seeking to reopen the time to appeal. This explanation, we hold, sufficed to allow the district court to construe his notice as a motion to reopen. We therefore deem his appeal timely.

This is an appeal from a default judgment originally entered by the General Sessions Court for Knox County (“general sessions court”) and then appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County (“circuit court”). Because the defendant did not appear in the circuit court, the circuit court also entered a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant then appealed to this Court. However, because of deficiencies in the defendant’s brief, any issues purportedly raised are waived. We thus affirm the circuit court’s ruling.

A Knox County jury found the Defendant, John Shaffighi, guilty of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery from events occurring in 1992. He was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-five years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. He also asserts the trial court erred by (1) denying a motion to dismiss in light of missing evidence; (2) allowing the victim’s forensic interview to be played at trial; (3) denying his motion for a mistrial after testimony from the victim; (4) limiting the testimony of his expert witness; (5) instructing the jury on its deliberation during its deadlock; and (6) imposing the maximum sentence after misapplying enhancement factors and failing to apply mitigating factors. The State concedes that the Defendant was not sentenced properly under the pre-2005 sentencing statutes. Upon our review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions but respectfully remand the case for resentencing in accordance with Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

The defendant, Roger Dean Guin, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated sexual battery, rape of a child, assault, rape, incest, and sexual battery by an authority figure, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statement and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Because the State’s elections in Counts 8, 9, and 10 were insufficient to protect the defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict and to protect against violations of the principles of double jeopardy, we vacate those convictions and remand for a new trial on those counts. We also remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 3, 5, and 7 reflecting the merger of those convictions into Counts 2, 4, and 6 respectively and reflecting the proper misdemeanor classification and sentences. We reverse the conviction in Count 1 and affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects.

Appellant attorney appeals the denial of his request for attorney’s fees to be paid from the estate of a ward in a conservatorship proceeding. The trial court denied the request on the bases that the legal services contract at issue did not provide for the payment of fees from the estate, the ward lacked capacity to enter into a power of attorney giving the executor of the contract authority to do so, and the applicant attorney was never appointed as attorney ad litem for the ward. We affirm.

This appeal involves claims to three disputed areas based on adverse possession and prescriptive easement. We affirm the trial court’s decision denying the plaintiff’s claims.

The Defendant, Guillermo Zapata, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced him to seven years, two months, and twelve days in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on due process and speedy trial grounds, and that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns sentencing issues only. Defendant, Robert W. Pitt, II, pleaded guilty in the Sumner County Criminal Court to five counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, involving one victim. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to six years in confinement on each conviction and ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for an effective thirty-year sentence. Defendant argues on appeal that his sentences are excessive and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive sentencing. We affirm.

This appeal involves premises liability and negligence claims asserted against a homeowner’s association after a shooting outside its community clubhouse while it was rented for a birthday party. The trial court granted summary judgment to the homeowner’s association, dismissing all claims, on two grounds. First, the trial court found that there was no foreseeability, and therefore, there was no duty. Second, the trial court concluded that there was no nexus, or proximate cause, between the allegedly negligent acts or omissions of the homeowner’s association and the harm that occurred. The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider or clarify the ruling, which the trial court denied. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.