The Defendant, Jonathan Michael Bass, pleaded guilty to one count of theft of property valued at $2,500 or more, but less than $10,000, two counts of theft of property valued over $1,000 but less than $2,500, one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or less, three counts of “doctor shopping,” and three counts of prescription drug fraud. The trial court imposed partial consecutive sentencing for an effective sentence of eight years to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by ordering partial consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Jaleen Genard Allen, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder during the perpetration of a kidnapping, especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2018) (subsequently amended) (first degree murder), 39-13-305 (2018) (especially aggravated kidnapping), 39-17-1324 (2018) (subsequently amended) (firearm violation). The trial court merged the first degree murder convictions and imposed a life sentence. The court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and to six years for the firearm violation. The court ordered consecutive service, for an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty-one years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant, Courtney Allison West, stated that appellant was appealing the judgment entered on January 7, 2021. As the parenting plan entered on January 7, 2021 does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

A wife obtained an ex parte order of protection from her estranged husband. After a hearing, the trial court found that the wife had proven the allegations of domestic abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. So the court extended the order of protection for one year. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s abuse finding, we affirm.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. The government charged Rebecca Stampe and Michael Loden with conspiring to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. Stampe pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government in its case against Loden. Loden did not plead guilty. Before Stampe’s sentencing and Loden’s trial, however, the government dropped Loden’s case after “discover[ing] circumstances apart from evidence of . . . guilt which prevent[ed] . . . moving forward.” (R. 71, PageID 289.)

Relying on government representations both that the informant’s misconduct happened after Stampe’s arrest and that the government had complied with disclosure obligations, the district court denied Stampe’s motion for production or review. It also denied her motion to withdraw from her plea agreement. We AFFIRM.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Braxton Levar Taylor, of second-degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying two, pre-trial motions to suppress the victim’s dying declaration, wherein the victim named the defendant as his shooter, and a photographic lineup which contained his picture and resulted in two witness identifications. The defendant also argues the trial court erred by failing to provide a jury instruction concerning the victim’s dying declaration and in sentencing. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kevin Caprice Smith, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of premeditated first-degree murder; attempted first-degree murder, a Class A felony; employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony; possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony; possession of heroin with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony; possession of a firearm by a felon with a prior felony drug conviction, a Class D felony; and possession of oxycodone, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment plus ten years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant-Appellant, Stacy Ann Givens, was indicted by a Henderson County grand jury of filing a false police report in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-502, a Class D felony, and misuse of 911 in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 7- 86-316, a Class C felony. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of both offenses. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to five years’ imprisonment for the filing a false police report conviction and thirty days’ imprisonment for the misuse of 911 conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the filing a false police report conviction, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Defendant an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Alexander R. Carino, Petitioner, appeals the summary dismissal of his 2020 Petition for Post-Conviction Relief which challenged his 2010 convictions for two counts of second degree murder. We affirm.

In this post-divorce dispute, ex-spouses filed competing petitions to modify alimony. The wife also sought to hold her former husband in civil contempt for failure to maintain the term life insurance policy specified in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. The trial court declined to hold the husband in contempt. Both parties obtained partial relief on their modification petitions. The court granted the wife a judgment for a retroactive increase in alimony. The court also reduced the husband’s alimony obligation prospectively based on his inability to pay the current amount during his retirement. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the husband had the ability to pay additional alimony in the first two months of 2019. We further conclude that the wife is entitled to an award of post-judgment interest. So we modify the court’s retroactive judgment accordingly. Otherwise, we affirm.