The Petitioner, Lemaricus Davidson, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of numerous offenses against the two victims, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, including multiple counts of first degree felony and premeditated murder, and the jury imposed sentences of death for each murder conviction. After this court and our supreme court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, he filed post-conviction and coram nobis petitions, seeking relief from those first degree murder convictions and death sentences. The post-conviction court found that trial counsel were deficient for not requesting a change of venue but that no prejudice resulted from trial counsel’s deficient performance and denied relief. The coram nobis court also denied relief. In this consolidated appeal, the Petitioner raises various issues, including that the post-conviction court erred by denying his request for expert services; that the post-conviction court erred by determining that a codefendant’s anticipated testimony at another codefendant’s upcoming trial was not relevant to the Petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief; that trial counsel were ineffective because they failed to request an out-of-county jury, improperly handled voir dire, and failed to raise certain issues on direct appeal of his convictions; and that he is entitled to coram nobis relief because a codefendant’s new testimony may have led to a different verdict as to the first degree premeditated murders of the victims. Based upon our review of the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the post-conviction court erroneously determined that a codefendant’s anticipated testimony at another codefendant’s upcoming trial was not relevant to the Petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief because the testimony would have invalidated one of the four aggravating circumstances found by the jury to impose the Petitioner’s death sentence for Mr. Newsom. However, we also conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the post-conviction court that trial counsel were deficient for not requesting a change of venue and that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficient performance. Therefore, we affirm the denials of post-conviction and coram nobis relief.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s entry of a permanent parenting plan involving one minor child. The trial court named the father primary residential parent of the minor child and entered a parenting plan awarding equal co-parenting time and ordering the child’s enrollment in the father’s school of choice. The mother appealed. Upon our review, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for entry of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate appellate review.

The Petitioner, Donald Jones, was found guilty by a jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary, and he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty years. After this court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions on direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to locate and interview an alibi witness and failed to request an instruction on accomplice testimony. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the University of Louisville’s (“UofL”) decision to suspend, and eventually to fire, Dr. Henry J. Kaplan. Kaplan served as both a tenured professor and the Chair of UofL’s Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (“DOVS”). In October 2018, UofL informed Kaplan that it was reviewing some of his actions as Chair and considering removing him from that position. These included his signing an unauthorized lease on behalf of DOVS and meeting with private equity firms interested in buying or financing DOVS. One month into the investigation, with no more warning, UofL placed him on paid administrative leave and prohibited him from coming to university grounds and communicating with his colleagues. The university also advised Kaplan that he could lose his tenured position.

Kaplan sued, claiming that UofL terminated him from both positions without due process. He also alleged that UofL violated his Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests in his reputation and career along with his First Amendment right to academic freedom. The district court dismissed all of Kaplan’s federal claims on UofL’s 12(b)(6) motion. We AFFIRM.

The Petitioner, Darryl Robinson, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for aggravated robbery and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-402, -17-1307(c)(1). On appeal, the Petitioner submits that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to (1) trial counsel’s failure to object to and preserve for appeal references by a witness identifying the Petitioner at trial by his prejudicial nickname “Trigger Man”; and (2) trial counsel’s failure to object during closing argument to the State’s use of a “pink elephant” analogy, as well as the failure to preserve the issue in the motion for new trial. In addition, the Petitioner raises a stand-alone allegation of prosecutorial misconduct based upon the State’s closing argument. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we are constrained to agree with the Petitioner that the post-conviction court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable appellate review of all his claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant, Elvin Portillo, entered into an agreement whereby he pled guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication, leaving the scene of an accident with death and reckless endangerment. Four remaining counts were dismissed. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court held a sentencing hearing to determine the length and service manner of Defendant’s sentences. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant received an effective sentence of 16 years. In this appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, because the record does not contain judgment forms for the remaining counts, if these judgments do not exist, we remand to the trial court for entry of judgment forms to reflect dismissal of those counts.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to establish a suitable home; (2) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the child; and (5) a present mental condition affecting the mother’s ability to adequately parent. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court.

This action was initiated by the mother’s filing of a petition for the return of custody of her minor child. The trial court granted the petition. The maternal grandmother moved to set aside the judgment. The court denied the motion by order and later entered an amended order, correcting errors. The mother appeals the final order. We dismiss the appeal.

This case involves an action filed by homeowners against their contractor for breach of contract regarding the installation of a swimming pool. The general sessions court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the circuit court which also entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. At about 5 o’clock in the morning on December 28, 2018, Defendants Brian Maurer, Russell Gartha, Eric Jachym, Tyler Fegreus, Patrick McCormick, Cole Armil, and Trevor Elliot, all officers employed by the Southfield Police Department, entered the home of Plaintiff Marciona Mitchell and her guest, Plaintiff James Williams, without a warrant and proceeded to arrest Williams. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Defendants bring an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s grant of Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on Williams’ claim for false arrest, and denial of their motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for unlawful entry and Mitchell’s claim for excessive force. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS IN PART Defendants’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction and AFFIRM IN PART the district court’s decision.