The Dickson County Grand Jury charged Defendant, Robert E. Huse, with aggravated child abuse and first degree felony murder in connection with the death of his infant son, G.S.1 Prior to trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce prior bad act evidence that Defendant abused another child four years before the victim’s death. Against Defendant’s repeated objections, the trial court allowed the admission of the prior bad act evidence for the purposes of establishing intent, identity, and common scheme or plan. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to life for first degree felony murder and to a concurrent term of fifteen years for aggravated child abuse. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting the prior bad act evidence, which prejudiced him. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the prior bad act evidence and that this error prejudiced Defendant. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Ricky L. Helmick, Jr., appeals his Hamblen County Criminal Court jury convictions of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but not more than $2,500 and aggravated kidnapping to facilitate theft, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Kevin L. French, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, he argues that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the State committed a Brady violation; and (4) he is actually innocent. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A father challenges the trial court’s decision terminating his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility. He further asserts that the trial court erred in finding that termination of his rights is in the child’s best interest. After reviewing the record on appeal, we have concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s decision in all respects.

A grandfather filed a petition to obtain visitation with his grandchild. The trial court granted the petitioner relief, and the child’s mother appeals. The grandfather did not allege, and the proof did not establish, that the mother had opposed or severely reduced the grandfather’s visitation before the petition was filed. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case.

This appeal involves several raised issues surrounding the ownership of the Hill Boren, PC law firm. Because the record transmitted to us on appeal evidences the lack of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee fell from a roof and reported back and neck pain. He was transported by ambulance to a local emergency room for treatment. In response to the employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, the employer did not offer a panel of physicians, did not provide medical benefits, and has not responded in any way to the claim. In response to the employee’s request for an expedited decision on the record, the trial court denied the employee’s claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding the employee had failed to provide adequate documentation regarding the nature of his injury, his need for medical treatment, or the extent or duration of any period of temporary disability. Employee has appealed. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s order and remand the case.

PER CURIAM. Vladimir Manso-Zamora, a federal prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, has appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for discretionary immediate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). The attorney this court appointed to represent Manso-Zamora has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that he believes there are no non-frivolous issues to raise in good faith in this appeal. Manso-Zamora has also filed pro se motions to voluntarily dismiss this appeal and to appoint a medical expert.

For these reasons, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The clerk’s office is directed to APPOINT new counsel pursuant to this court’s November 4, 2020 order and, after Manso-Zamora’s new counsel has filed an appearance, issue a new expedited briefing schedule.

The Defendants, Michael Patrick Sullivan and Debra Clark Buckner, alias, appeal from their Knox County Criminal Court convictions for animal cruelty, for which they each received an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendants argue that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-211 requiring a probable cause determination by a qualified livestock examiner is a condition precedent to an animal cruelty conviction and that the evidence was insufficient to establish the examiner’s qualifications in this case. Following our review, we conclude relative to co-defendant Sullivan that this court is without jurisdiction to consider his appeal because he was granted judicial diversion. Relative to co-defendant Buckner, we affirm.

The Defendant, Torsaunt Lamont Shanklin, was charged with drug and firearm offenses after those items were discovered during a search of his motel room. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause for a search warrant based solely on the smell of marijuana coming from the room. The trial court denied the suppression motion. A jury convicted the Defendant of one count each of possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, as well as three alternative counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He received an effective thirty-five-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to suppression of the evidence, which was seized pursuant to a valid search warrant. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. However, we remand this case for entry of corrected judgment forms as detailed in this opinion.