Court Rulings

The Defendant, Jamaal Austin, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree felony murder one count of first degree premeditated murder one count of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony and one count of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -13-202, -13-402, -13-403, -14-403, -17-1324(b). The trial court then merged the first degree premeditated murder conviction into the first degree felony murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-four years. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions (2) that the trial court erred in denying his severance motion (3) that his convictions violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (4) that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty as the thirteenth juror and (5) that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing partial consecutive sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction for especially aggravated robbery. We vacate that conviction and modify it to aggravated robbery. The case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing on the modified conviction, entry of an amended judgment form reflecting the modification, and entry of corrected judgment form in Count 1 reflecting the trial court's merger of the first degree premediated murder conviction into the first degree felony murder conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

This interlocutory appeal involves a complaint for damages under the Public Employee Political Freedom Act. The chancery court transferred the case to circuit court after determining that only unliquidated damages were "available" under the statute. We conclude that the complaint failed to allege any liquidated damages. As such, the chancery court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. The trial court's decision to transfer this case to circuit court is therefore affirmed.

This appeal involves the forfeiture of the retirement benefits of a former Tennessee trial judge after he was convicted in federal court of numerous felonies arising out of his official capacity as a trial judge and constituting malfeasance in office. The former trial judge appealed the termination of his benefits and participated in a contested case proceeding before an administrative law judge, who ultimately determined that the retirement benefits were properly terminated based on the felony convictions and that the statute requiring such forfeiture was not unconstitutional as applied to the former trial judge. The chancery court agreed with these conclusions. We likewise conclude that the application of the forfeiture statute did not unconstitutionally impair the pension contract of the former trial judge, nor did it unilaterally impose an impermissible retrospective law or constitute an excessive fine. We further conclude that the retirement benefits were suspended as of the appropriate date, despite the former trial judge's insistence to the contrary. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the chancery court and remand for further proceedings.

We granted the Rule 9 application for an interlocutory appeal filed by The Krystal Company ("Krystal") to consider whether certain communications between Krystal's chief legal officer and David Jungling ("Jungling"), an employee of Krystal vendor Denali Sourcing Services, Inc. ("Denali"), are protected by attorney-client privilege. Waste Administrative Services, Inc. ("WASI"), which provided refuse service for Krystal, sued Krystal, Denali, and Jungling in the Circuit Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court") alleging that Krystal breached their contract by unilaterally terminating it and that Denali and Jungling induced the breach. The Trial Court held that communications between Jungling and Krystal's chief legal officer after June 9, 2014— at which time Krystal and Denali executed a master agreement—are protected by attorney-client privilege while prior communications are not. We hold that Jungling was the functional equivalent of a Krystal employee as of October 31, 2013 when he was told by Krystal's President to "take lead" on Krystal's dealings with WASI, and that his subsequent communications with Krystal's chief legal officer qualify for attorney-client privilege belonging to Krystal. We, therefore, modify the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

In this divorce action, the trial court entered a "Judgment and Parenting Plan" on July 10, 2017, which addressed, inter alia, issues regarding division of the parties' assets and debts, co-parenting time with the parties' minor children, child support, and alimony. Within thirty days of entry of the judgment, the parties filed competing motions, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59, seeking amendment of the July 10, 2017 judgment. The trial court conducted a hearing regarding the Rule 59 motions on August 1, 2017 issued an oral ruling and directed the mother's counsel to prepare an order. On August 7, 2017, the father filed a petition seeking to modify the parties' permanent parenting plan in order to reflect that one of the children had recently been spending minimal time with the mother. Subsequently, on September 11, 2017, the father filed a motion seeking recusal of the trial court judge, asserting that the judge had exhibited bias against the father or his counsel by the judge's statements and actions during the August 1, 2017 hearing. On November 6, 2017, the trial court entered an order disposing of the Rule 59 motions. Later that same day, the trial court entered a separate order granting the recusal motion. The mother filed an appeal from the trial court's order concerning the Rule 59 motions. On appeal, the father filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and a motion seeking this Court's consideration of certain post-judgment facts. We grant the father's motion to consider post-judgment facts and deny his motion to dismiss the mother's appeal. Discerning no error in the trial court's distribution of marital assets and allocation of debts, we affirm such adjudications in their entirety. We vacate, however, the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony and remand the spousal support issue to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We grant the mother's request for an award of attorney's fees on appeal, remanding tha

Common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by affirming Unemployment Review Commission determination on the facts of this case, that medical transportation company's drivers were employees rather than independent contractors. The common pleas court examined the twenty factors set forth by rule and was not clearly wrong in its analysis of those factors. The common pleas court also did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit findings from the Bureau of Workers Compensation as newly-discovered evidence because those findings were issued before the administrative hearing occurred and could have been introduced at the administrative level.