Monqueze L. Summers, Defendant, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he argued that his life sentence was illegal. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Timothy Terell Mays, was convicted on his guilty pleas to two counts of sale of cocaine, a Class C felony, and two counts of delivery of cocaine, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-17-417(a)(2), (3), (c)(2)(A) (2018). The delivery offenses were merged with the sale offenses. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received six-year sentences, to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to a previous sentence, and he reserved a certified question of law regarding mandatory joinder of the present offenses with the offenses from a previous prosecution in which his guilt had already been adjudicated. We affirm the judgments of the trial court, and we remand the case for correction of a clerical error.

This appeal arises from a divorce action. During the trial court proceedings, the parties agreed on a distribution of a majority of the marital property. However, a hearing was necessary concerning missing gold and silver that had been purchased during the marriage. The Trial Court found Husband not to be a credible witness. The Trial Court further found that the gold existed, that Husband had control of the safe room where the gold was located, and that Husband was responsible for the gold being missing. Husband appeals the Trial Court’s judgment to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Grants & Denials List

Week of July 6, 2020 - July 10, 2020

This appeal is another in a series of cases concerning the interaction between several states’ stay-at-home orders and the signature requirements needed to gain access to the ballot. Plaintiffs are proponents of a criminal-justice reform initiative that they seek to place on the ballot for the 2020 Michigan general election. Defendants include the governor and other state officials, who continued to strictly enforce the signature requirement for initiatives even after the governor had issued an order requiring most Michigan residents to remain in their homes as part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

When officials told Plaintiffs that the signature requirement would still be enforced against them, they filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that the combination of the stay-at-home order and the signature requirement violates the First Amendment by creating a severe restriction on their access to the ballot. The district court agreed and enjoined the strict enforcement of the signature requirement. SawariMedia LLC v. Whitmer (SawariMedia I), No. 20-CV-11246, 2020 WL 3097266 (E.D. Mich. June 11, 2020). And while Defendants proposed a compromise remedy that included a several-weeks extension of the filing deadline, the district court rejected this proposal as insufficient. Defendants then appealed and now ask for an emergency stay.

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is denied. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal but direct the district court to address any further remedy proposed by Defendants by no later than July 15, 2020. If Defendants fail to propose a remedy that resolves the constitutional infirmity by that date, they will be precluded from enforcing the petition deadline against Plaintiffs, pending further review of any proposed remedy by this Court.

CLAY, CIRCUIT JUDGE. A jury convicted Defendant Oghenevwakpo Igboba on multiple criminal counts based on his participation in a conspiracy to defraud the United States Department of the Treasury by preparing and filing false federal income tax returns using others’ identities. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 162 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and required to pay restitution, special assessment, and forfeiture sums.

For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted Petitioner, Leonel Lopez, for first degree murder. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. Petitioner received a twenty-year sentence. This Court upheld Petitioner’s conviction on appeal. State v. Lopez, 440 S.W.3d 601 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, and that the trial court made various errors. After two hearings, the post-conviction court denied relief. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Bryan James Cooke, challenges his effective sentence of two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole resulting from his convictions of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, and a theft offense. Both the Defendant’s motion for a new trial and his notice of appeal were filed over one year after the entry of the judgment forms, and the Defendant has given no explanation of the untimely filings. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

A father appeals the trial court’s decision terminating his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit. Finding clear and convincing evidence to support both grounds and that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Stephen Lynn Hugueley, a death row inmate at Tennessee’s Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which alleged various violations of his constitutional rights. We granted a certificate of appealability on only one issue, whether Hugueley’s counsel at trial was ineffective. In the proceedings below, the federal habeas court concluded that this claim had been procedurally defaulted. Hugueley originally raised the claim in his state post conviction proceedings, but he waived the claim when he decided to voluntarily withdraw his petition. Hugueley now argues that he should have been declared incompetent to withdraw his post conviction petition, and that the state court procedures that determined that he was competent were procedurally deficient under Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). He therefore contends that the court’s ruling of procedural default was incorrect. In the alternative, he argues that his default should be excused under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), because his state post conviction counsel was ineffective, and her deficient performance caused his default.

For the following reasons, we reject Hugueley’s arguments and affirm the district court’s denial of his habeas petition.