Defendant, Nemon Omar Winton, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years for each count of especially aggravated kidnapping, fifteen years for aggravated kidnapping, and fifteen years for aggravated robbery. The trial court ordered the sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentence for aggravated robbery for an effective forty-five-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his request for a special jury instruction; and (3) that his sentence was excessive. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. We conclude the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of aggravated kidnapping, reverse that conviction and dismiss with prejudice the charge of aggravated kidnapping contained in Count Nine of the indictment. That count is remanded for consideration of appropriate lesser-included offenses, if any, of aggravated kidnapping.

A Putnam County grand jury indicted the defendant for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, and simple possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. After trial, a jury convicted the defendant of all counts. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his girlfriend’s vehicle. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the indictments against the defendant.

Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights. Based on a prior finding that they had committed severe child abuse against one of their children, the juvenile court concluded that there was a statutory ground to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the abused child, his siblings, and a half-sibling. The court also concluded that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of all the children. Although we agree that there was clear and convincing evidence of a ground to terminate parental rights, we are unable to review the court’s best interest determination due to a lack of factual findings. So we vacate the judgment terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the statutory grounds of: (1) severe child abuse, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4); (2) abandonment by willful failure to support, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14); (3) abandonment by wanton disregard, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); and (4) persistence of conditions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A). The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court.

The grandparents of a minor child filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of the child’s biological father. Following a hearing on the petition, the trial court terminated the father’s parental rights, determining that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish five statutory grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, persistence of the conditions leading to the child’s removal, abandonment by conduct prior to incarceration demonstrating wanton disregard for the child’s welfare, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court also determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects, including the termination of the father’s parental rights.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Queen sued his former employer, the City of Bowling Green (“the City”), and a former supervisor, Dustin Rockrohr, asserting violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). This appeal concerns whether the district court correctly denied summary judgment to the City and Rockrohr on certain KCRA claims, holding that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the City as to the claims for hostile work environment based on religion and for retaliation and AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Rockrohr for the retaliation claim.

PER CURIAM. When Sidney Dowl violated the terms of his supervised release, the district court sent him back to prison for 11 months. During Dowl’s revocation hearing, the district court gave him several opportunities to explain his conduct and offer evidence in mitigation. But it never directly solicited Dowl to ask if he wanted to make a statement on his behalf, what’s called an opportunity for allocution. Dowl did not raise any objection during his revocation hearing, even after being given a chance to do so at the end of it. Reviewing his denial-of-allocution claim for plain error, we affirm.

In 2009, a Campbell County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joseph Nathaniel Nance, of six counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty-four years of incarceration. The Petitioner appealed his convictions to this court, and we affirmed the judgments. State v. Nance, 393 S.W.3d 212 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. After review, we affirm the postconviction court’s judgment.

The Appellant, Thomas Massey, filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, and the Rutherford County Circuit Court summarily denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the effective ten-year sentence he received pursuant to his guilty pleas to aggravated assault and evading arrest is illegal because he is being held beyond the period of incarceration authorized by the judgments of conviction. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se Petitioner, Ricky Harris, appeals as of right from the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s order summarily denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely or to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken as to the filing of a memorandum opinion and affirm the order of the habeas corpus court.