The Petitioner, Moriarco Lee, was found guilty by a jury of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault, and he received a twenty-two-year sentence in confinement. The Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal to this court. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief contending, among other claims not raised on appeal, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to subpoena alibi witnesses to testify at trial, failed to present video evidence at trial, and failed to challenge a biased juror. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Tipton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Bryan Austin Demeza, of one count of aggravated child neglect, three counts of aggravated child abuse, and one count of felony murder. On direct appeal, this court reduced one of the Petitioner’s convictions from aggravated child neglect to child neglect. State v. Bryan Austin Demeza, W2016-02086- CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1040145, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 7, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 8, 2018). The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. After review, we affirm the postconviction court’s judgment.

This divorce action concerns the trial court’s classification and division of the marital estate, among other issues concerning the trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in granting the employee’s motion to exclude the employer’s vocational expert in this cause. The employer argues that restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and executive orders issued by the Governor of Tennessee rendered it unable to meet deadlines set by the trial court with respect to expert disclosures. As a result, according to the employer’s argument, the trial court should have acknowledged its “excusable neglect” and permitted it to present vocational expert proof at trial. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Week of October 26, 2020 - October 30, 2020

Question: Do the requirements to report certain information to the FBI-NICS Index and the Tennessee Department of Safety imposed on court clerks by Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-3-115(a) apply when a court orders a conservatorship?

Opinion: Yes. The Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-3-115(a) reporting requirements for court clerks apply when a Tennessee court orders the appointment of a conservator for a person who is in need of supervision, protection, and assistance due to mental illness or other mental incapacity.

The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent through wanton disregard and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The trial court also found that termination was in the children’s best interests. Father appeals. Because there are significant deficiencies in the trial court’s order, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

A pro se plaintiff moved to recuse based on comments made by the judge at a hearing. The motion to recuse was denied, and this accelerated interlocutory appeal followed. Because the plaintiff’s filings are deficient, we affirm the denial of the motion for recusal.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. LaTasha Tennial appealed a ruling in her bankruptcy case after the deadline for doing so had passed. The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The deadline does not create a limitation on our subject matter jurisdiction. But we agree that Tennial missed the deadline and that the deadline is mandatory. We therefore affirm the dismissal on this independent ground.

On July 24, 2020, the district court entered an order denying Arthur Duane Payton’s motion for compassionate release or a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A notice of appeal from the July 24 order, dated August 9, 2020, was filed in the district court on August 10, 2020. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Because Payton’s notice of appeal was filed after the fourteen-day appeal period but within the next thirty days, we REMAND the case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the court to determine whether Payton has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. Following this limited remand, the record as supplemented will be returned to this court for further consideration. We defer ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss pending the limited remand.