The petitioner, James Johnson aka Guy Bonner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition apparently challenged his 2012 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of burglary, theft of property valued at $500 or less, and resisting arrest.

The defendant, Charis Lynn Jetton, pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13- 211, 39-17-1324(a). For her respective crimes, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of seven years and three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erroneously denied her request for alternative sentencing as to the voluntary manslaughter conviction.

The defendant, Torian Dillard, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant contends his sentences are illegal because the State failed to provide proper notice of its intent to seek enhanced punishment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-202(a). The defendant also argues the trial court improperly relied on two prior theft convictions in classifying him as a career offender. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Kevin Scott Burris’ (“the Defendant”) community corrections officer filed an affidavit, alleging that the Defendant had violated the conditions of community corrections. Following two hearings, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community corrections supervision and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Jose Ramon Gonzalez-Perez (“Father”) appeals the March 7, 2016 order of the Juvenile Court for Shelby County (“the Juvenile Court”) finding him in contempt for non-payment of child support. Father raises several issues including whether Father can be held guilty of contempt when benefits Father receives pursuant to 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, are exempt from “all claims of creditors and from levy, execution, and attachment or other remedy for recovery or collection of a debt . . .

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee contends there is a causal relationship between her left knee condition and an alleged August 22, 2016 injury to her right knee. She asserts she suffered a work-related injury to her left knee on July 6, 2016, and due to instability in her left knee, suffered the August 22, 2016 right knee injury.

This interlocutory appeal involves an employee who claims to have suffered a back injury retrieving ice from her employer’s ice machine. The employer denied the claim without providing a panel of physicians or other benefits and, after the employee requested an expedited hearing, had the employee examined by a physician of its choosing. That physician opined the employment did not contribute more than fifty percent in causing the employee’s current condition.

The Appellant, Mack Jeffery Thompson, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The trial court denied the motion, and the Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion but remand the case for correction of a clerical error on the judgment of conviction.

This appeal concerns visitation in a post-divorce setting. Claire Nicola Bell (“Mother”) and Timothy John Bell (“Father”) are parents of the two minor children at issue, ages eleven and seven at trial (“the Children”). Mother and Father divorced in 2012. Both parents were named “co-primary residential parents” and each parent received equal visitation time with the Children. Later, as the arrangement grew contentious, Mother filed a petition for modification seeking to be named exclusive primary residential parent. Father, in turn, filed a counter-petition seeking the same designation.