TBA's Indigent Representation Primer series recently featured two articles that provide basics about Tennessee's system for appointed counsel as well as context for discussions about increased resources for indigent representation. The initial primer article introduces the basics of our state's system and the situations that require counsel be appointed for individuals unable to afford representation. The second primer article highlights background and data about Tennessee's Indigent Representation Program, including how courts determine and assign counsel for indigent defendants and vulnerable individuals. Both items include information about the General Assembly's 2024 increased funding for indigent representation — a step in the right direction, but still leaving a significant gap to fill.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises from a criminal investigation of Plaintiffs for a fire that occurred at their restaurant in Westland, Michigan. In Case No. 19-1882, Defendants John Adams and Michael Reddy Jr. appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim on qualified immunity grounds. In Case No. 19-1870, Defendant Michael Reddy Sr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. And in Case No. 19-1857, Defendant Richard Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim on qualified immunity grounds. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Reddy Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s order with respect to the other Defendants.

The Defendant, Yancey Lee Williams II, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically, challenging the element of premeditation; (2) the trial court erred by finding that he was engaged in unlawful activity and thereby omitting the “no duty to retreat” language from the self-defense instruction; (3) the prosecutor made improper and inflammatory comments regarding religion and race during closing arguments; and (4) plain error occurred when the State failed to provide pretrial documentation of a witness’s statement to law enforcement despite an order being in place directing such disclosure. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Tennessee, is there ever a time when a prosecutor would not be allowed to dismiss a case after indictment? Politics aside, the controversy over the United States Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn presents important issues regarding the scope of authority between prosecutors and courts.

Several states are weighing an American Bar Association (ABA) led push to encourage attorneys handling intellectually disabled and elderly clients to consider alternatives to legal guardianships, Bloomberg Law reports. The ABA House of Delegates approved revisions to Model Rule 1.14 earlier this year, updating guidance for lawyers representing clients with limited decision-making abilities amid concerns that guardianship has too often become a default solution. Supporters of the changes say they could help address longstanding problems in the guardianship system, including inadequate oversight and instances of abuse, while others argue that ethics rule revisions alone are unlikely to curb exploitation in the system. Michigan is already moving to adopt the revised language, and bar officials in several other states are exploring similar changes.

The University of Tennessee Winston College of Law (Winston Law) has selected the inaugural Frank Winston Public Interest and Business Law Fellows. Winston Law’s signature scholarship program is designed to attract exceptional students committed to serving the public good in the areas of public interest law and business law. Made possible through a transformational gift from The Bill Gatton Foundation, fellows receive full tuition and fees, a generous annual stipend, summer internship funding, faculty mentorship, research opportunities, personalized career advising and access to a variety of academic professional development programming. “The Winston Fellows program is modeled after other notable, longstanding scholarship programs such as Emory’s Robert W. Woodruff Scholars and Fellows Program and NYU’s Root-Tilden-Kern Scholars Program,” noted Winston Law Dean Lonnie T. Brown Jr. Read more in a press release from the law school.

The Petitioner, Jacquet Moore, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his underlying conviction for aggravated rape. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to (1) perform adequate investigation in preparation for trial, including seeking funds for investigative services, and (2) effectively impeach the victim on cross-examination. As a preliminary matter, we remanded the case to the post-conviction court for the entry of an amended order to include sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on these two issues. After our review of the amended order, as well as the issues presented by the parties and the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Howard Jefferson Atkins, acting pro se, appeals from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s summary denial of his Rule 36 motion to correct an alleged clerical error in a juvenile transfer order entered in 2000. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Hamid Houbbadi, Petitioner, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated burglary and sentenced to life in prison plus twelve years. State v. Houbbadi, No. M2022-01751-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 8525144, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 8, 2023), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 15, 2024). He was unsuccessful on direct appeal. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, amended pro se petition, and second amended pro se petition. He insisted on proceeding pro se. After a two-day hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues: (1) his Fifth Amendment rights were violated; (2) the State committed a Brady violation; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (4) the post-conviction court failed to address all the issues of “ineffective assistance of counsel caused by the court”; (5) the post-conviction court abused its discretion by declining to appoint elbow counsel; (6) the post-conviction court improperly ruled that service of subpoena by text message is invalid; and (7) he was denied due process of law. After a full review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.