A jury found Defendant, Daquan H. Fields, guilty of felony murder, aggravated robbery, and reckless homicide. The reckless homicide conviction merged with the felony murder conviction, and Defendant received a life sentence. Defendant received a twelve-year sentence for the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Defendant further argues that the trial court erred in ordering his twelve-year sentence for aggravated robbery to be served consecutively to the life sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On July 16, 2019, the trial court entered a final judgment in the amount of $50,000 against Appellant, 911 Bail Bonding, LLC, and Defendant, Rickey La Ron Houston-Church. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the final judgment. Appellant then filed two motions in the trial court to exonerate bond. Following a hearing on the motions, the trial court “set aside” the $50,000 forfeiture in the final judgment and “reduced” the forfeiture to $15,000. On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion “by not analyzing fault” when it only reduced the forfeiture to $15,000. We determine that the trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction to amend or modify its final judgment when Appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking relief from that judgment. Because Appellant failed to set forth any argument whatsoever regarding the final judgment, we affirm the July 16, 2019 final judgment.

Two parents have appealed from a final order terminating their parental rights. Because neither parent filed their notice of appeal with the clerk of this Court within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.

This case involves the sale of a closely held corporation among family members and enforcement of the parties’ agreement relative thereto. The trial court determined, inter alia, that certain assets were the personal assets of the former corporate shareholders and did not pass with the sale of the corporation. The trial court also determined that the new sole shareholder of the corporation could not recover expenditures of corporate funds that were allegedly for the former shareholders’ personal use when they owned the corporation. The trial court further determined that although one of the former shareholders had violated a covenant not to compete contained in the parties’ sale agreement, the plaintiffs had failed to prove that such violation was the cause of the corporation’s lost profits following the sale. The plaintiffs timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Week of February 1, 2021 - February 5, 2021

Defendant, Bryant Lamont Thomas, was employed as a probation officer with the Tennessee Department of Correction. He pled guilty to Class E felony sexual contact with a probationer. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant judicial diversion and sentenced Defendant to two years to be served on supervised probation. Defendant claims the court abused its discretion by denying diversion. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Rocky Joe Houston, appeals from the Roane County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus from his 2010 conviction of felony evading arrest, for which he served a one-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the habeas corpus court erred in dismissing his petition. Because the Petitioner failed to state a cognizable basis for relief, we affirm.

This case stems from injuries suffered by a minor while he was a resident at a juvenile treatment facility. The plaintiff initially filed suit against the former owner and operator of the facility. Nearly a year later, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include the party that owned and operated the facility during the relevant time period. Both of the defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the original defendant, in part, because it found that the original defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff at the time the alleged injuries occurred. The court granted summary judgment for the second defendant because the plaintiff failed to include the party in the suit within the applicable statute of limitations. After the trial court denied the plaintiff’s post-judgment motion to set aside its ruling, the plaintiff appealed. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and remand.

In terminating a mother’s parental rights, the trial court concluded that there were two statutory grounds for termination: abandonment by willful failure to visit and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody and financial responsibility. The trial court also concluded that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Because we conclude that the evidence of the grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights was less than clear and convincing, we reverse.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In 1976, 19-year-old Ledura Watkins was convicted of the murder of Yvette Ingram and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The State of Michigan’s case against Watkins hinged on a begrudged schoolfellow and a single hair: Watkins’s 20-year-old high school classmate Travis Herndon testified that he and Watkins robbed and murdered Ingram together, and Detroit Police Department Evidence Technician Ronald Badaczewski testified that a hair found on Ingram’s clothing matched a hair sample of Watkins. After Watkins’s conviction, Herndon repeatedly recanted. In sworn affidavits, letters, and testimony, Herndon continuously attested that Wayne County Prosecutor Robert H. Healy and Detective Neil Schwartz threatened to charge him with Ingram’s murder and another unrelated murder if Herndon did not tape a statement that implicated Watkins and testify to that effect at Watkins’s trial. Yet Watkins’s efforts to overturn his conviction were of no avail for four decades. In January 2017, Watkins presented to the state trial court new evidence that Badaczewski’s hair analysis methods were seriously flawed. Based on this new evidence, the state trial court dismissed the case against Watkins without prejudice.

In December 2017, Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Healy, the estate of Schwartz, Badaczewski, and the City of Detroit. Healy responded with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The district court denied Healy’s motion, and this appeal ensued. Although we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider most of Healy’s arguments, we hold that Healy is not entitled to absolute immunity for his alleged actions and that Healy has forfeited the issue of qualified immunity at this stage of the suit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.