The Defendant, Christopher C. Sullivan, was charged with violation of the sex offender registry and perjury. A Sullivan County jury found the Defendant not guilty of violating the sex offender registry and guilty of perjury. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of six years on probation, sixty days of which were to be served in confinement. The Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of perjury, that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting as evidence a judgment of conviction form from New York and the indictment underlying that conviction, that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent, and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We granted permission to appeal to the Defendant to examine the propriety of his convictions for money laundering based on his receipt of payment for drugs he “fronted” to a confidential informant. On separate occasions, the Defendant delivered a quantity of marijuana to the informant. At the time of delivery, the informant paid the Defendant for a portion of marijuana, but the Defendant also fronted additional marijuana to the informant, meaning the Defendant had an expectation that he would be paid later with proceeds from the informant’s sale of the drugs. The Defendant subsequently received payment. Based on these actions, the Defendant was charged with and convicted of two counts of delivering marijuana and two counts of money laundering. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-903(c)(1) (2006); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a)(2) (2006 & Supp. 2008). The Defendant challenged whether the evidence supported his money laundering convictions, whether those convictions violated double jeopardy protections, and whether the money laundering statute was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court rejected the Defendant’s challenges, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments. We hold that the evidence supporting one of the money laundering convictions was legally sufficient, because the proof supported an inference that the Defendant purchased marijuana with the proceeds he had received with the intent to promote the carrying on of the sale of marijuana. With respect to the second money laundering conviction, we hold that the evidence was insufficient, because the proof showed only that the Defendant received payment for drugs he had fronted. We further hold that the Defendant’s punishment for both delivery of marijuana and money laundering does not violate double jeopardy protections and that the money laundering statute is not unconstitutionally vague by virtue of its use of the undefined phrase “carrying on.” Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant, Milton Simpson, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and imposing an effective ten-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that he violated the terms of his probation by breaking the law and that (2) his right of confrontation was violated when a court liaison testified in lieu of his probation officer and when a certified copy of an indictment was introduced as evidence. Following our review, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Coy McKaughan, filed a post-conviction petition in the Shelby County Criminal Court seeking relief from his conviction of aggravated sexual battery and accompanying twelve-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The postconviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective, (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective, (3) his due process rights were violated by the State’s withholding evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, (4) his due process rights were violated by the State’s assembling a “rigged grand jury foreperson,” (5) the State violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, and (6) he was denied his constitutional right to a “full and fair” post-conviction hearing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Robert Earl Grady, Jr., pleaded guilty to two counts of felon in possession of a firearm for which he received consecutive twelve-year sentences for an effective sentence of twenty-four years’ confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred by imposing consecutive terms. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County grand jury indicted the defendant, Andre Bowen, and his co-defendant, Anthony Olivo, for two counts of first-degree, felony murder (Counts 1 and 2) and attempted especially aggravated robbery (Count 3). The grand jury also indicted the defendant for two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Counts 4 and 5). After a joint trial, the jury acquitted the defendant on Count 1 but found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of facilitation of first-degree, felony murder in Count 2, attempted especially aggravated robbery in Count 3, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in Counts 4 and 5, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of seventy-two years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and argues the trial court erred in sentencing. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand the case for a new sentencing hearing as to Counts 4 and 5 to reflect the appropriate felony classification for each offense and for entry of new sentences for each conviction.

In this Opinion, we are tasked with reviewing two separate cases concerning the State’s oversight of a child care center in Memphis. Somewhat uniquely, these cases were adjudicated under a single docket number in the Shelby County Chancery Court and were appealed to this Court in that posture. One of the cases, which concerns a petition for a writ of mandamus, was originally filed in the Davidson County Chancery Court and was subsequently transferred to the Shelby County Chancery Court. The second case involves judicial review under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. As to the mandamus case at issue, we conclude that venue lies only in Davidson County and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter relief. Accordingly, that judgment is vacated, and we direct that the case be transferred back to the Davidson County Chancery Court. As to the case for judicial review, we conclude that the decision of the hearing officer was supported by substantial and material evidence and therefore reverse the trial court and remand for the entry of an order reinstating the hearing officer’s decision.

On November 18, 2020, this Court filed its Opinion and Judgment in this appeal. No petition to rehear was filed by any party, and no application for permission to appeal has yet been filed in this case.

Pursuant to Rule 39(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court may grant rehearing upon its own motion. Because we conclude that the opinion in this case contains an incorrect statement of law with regard to the issue of child support, we hereby vacate our November 18, 2020 Opinion and Judgment. We will contemporaneously file a revised Opinion and Judgment in accordance with this order.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellants Mother and Stepfather appeal the trial court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was not in the Child’s best interest. Appellee Father appeals the trial court’s finding that he abandoned the Child by willful failure to visit and willful failure to support. Upon review, we conclude that Father abandoned the Child by willful failure to visit and support. Because the record supports the conclusion that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest, we reverse the trial court as to this issue, and we remand for entry of an order terminating Father’s parental rights.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Melanie Pelcha was an employee of Watch Hill Bank (“Watch Hill”) and its holding company MW Bancorp Inc. until she was terminated for refusing to turn in a time-off request form. Pelcha alleges that she was terminated on the basis of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The district court dismissed her claims on summary judgment. We see no error in the district court’s decision and AFFIRM.