CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this action, Plaintiff John Harden, an African American man, asserted a number of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Keith Hillman, the City of Heritage Creek, and Thorntons, Inc., alleging violations of his constitutional rights, as well as claims under Kentucky law. Harden’s claims arose out of his arrest and prosecution following an incident at a Thorntons convenience store in Louisville, Kentucky. Besides Harden’s excessive force claim against Hillman, all of his claims were dismissed prior to trial. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hillman on the excessive force claim.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Hillman on Harden’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause, AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Harden’s first Motion for New Trial, VACATE the district court’s order denying Harden’s second Motion for New Trial, and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Quantavious Williams, of first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, carjacking, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. In this appeal, the defendant challenges those convictions on grounds that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony regarding the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged offenses and that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves an intra-family dispute over a parcel of real property. Because of the profound deficiencies with Appellant’s brief, we decline to reach the merits of this appeal and instead find that Appellant has waived his argument. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and award Appellee damages, including attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122.

Week of March 29, 2021 - April 1, 2021

The Petitioner, Larry Thomas Cochran, appeals from the Sevier County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 convictions for attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, resisting arrest, and criminal impersonation, for which he is serving an eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by finding that his petition for relief was untimely and by denying relief on his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations. Although we conclude that the post-conviction court erred by determining that the petition for relief was untimely, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Steven Skinner, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking relief from his two convictions for first degree premeditated murder and his consecutive life sentences. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed, not entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations, and otherwise nonmeritorious. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the dismissal.

On June 24, 2015, Terrell Lamont Reid (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Pursuant to the criminal gang enhancement statute, the firearm offense was enhanced from a Class C to a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-121(b) (2014). On April 7, 2016, the Court of Criminal Appeals declared the criminal gang enhancement statute unconstitutional as a violation of substantive due process. See State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118, 158-60 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2016). The Petitioner did not file a post-conviction petition challenging his guilty plea. Instead, the Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 (“Rule 36.1”), arguing that the intermediate appellate court’s decision declaring the criminal gang enhancement statute unconstitutional rendered his sentence illegal. The trial court denied his motion, concluding it did not state a claim for relief, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the Bonds decision rendered the Petitioner’s sentence for the firearm conviction void and, thus, illegal under Rule 36.1. In accordance with this Court’s holding in Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83-85 (Tenn. 1999), we hold that the Petitioner’s sentence was voidable, not void and illegal. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals’s decision and reinstate the trial court’s order denying the Petitioner’s motion.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the professor’s free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse.

The petitioner, Earley Story, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Shelby County Criminal Court, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because newly discovered evidence exists which is material to his case. After our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Terrell Jackson, of two counts of aggravated rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-five years in confinement at 100%. On appeal, the defendant contends the statute of limitations was not tolled during the period of time he was involuntarily residing in Louisiana, and therefore, his prosecution was barred. The defendant also argues the State delayed the testing of the victim’s rape kit to obtain a tactical advantage. Upon our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and pertinent authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.