Pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant, Anthen Lee Parker, who entered pleas of guilty in two separate cases to driving after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender, appeals a certified question of law related to the validity of an earlier judgment declaring him a motor vehicle habitual offender. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner, David Edward Niles, was indicted for, and ultimately convicted of, first degree murder in Bedford County. State v. David Edward Niles, No. M2011-01412-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 1965438, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 1, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2012). His direct appeal was unsuccessful. Id. He subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the petition was dismissed.

The defendant, Torrie D. Carter, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure to correct an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the summary dismissal of his motion.

The defendant, Joseph Cordell Brewer, III, was convicted of theft of property of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony; evading arrest, a Class D felony; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to serve twelve years for the theft of property conviction, twelve years as a Range IV, career offender for the felony evading arrest conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor evading arrest conviction.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of both mother and father on the ground of severe abuse. Because there is sufficient evidence to conclude that mother and father were engaged in methamphetamine manufacture in their home, we affirm the finding of severe abuse. However, because no clear and convincing evidence exists in the record that termination is in the child?s best interest, we reverse the termination of both mother?s and father?s parental rights.

Bank sued borrowers on a lost or destroyed promissory note. Borrowers, among other defenses, denied that the note was in default and the amount due. Borrowers also claimed that bank had destroyed the note with the intention of discharging the obligation. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of bank.

This is the second appeal from an action filed by Plaintiff against the Tennessee National Guard in which he contends Defendant violated the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) by refusing to rehire Plaintiff after he returned from active duty military service. In the first appeal, we affirmed the grant of Defendant’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon sovereign immunity from USERRA claims, noting that only the Tennessee General Assembly could waive the state’s sovereign immunity.

This is a malicious prosecution case. In the underlying case, plaintiff was sued by defendants for abuse of process. That case was resolved on summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff filed this case for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

The plaintiff tenant in this action rented an apartment from the defendant landlord. Attached to the apartment were a wooden deck and staircase leading to the ground below. The tenant filed suit against the landlord for injuries the tenant sustained when a board on the stairs collapsed, causing the tenant to fall. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord because the tenant could not show that the landlord had knowledge of any dangerous condition on the leased premises. The tenant has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court?s finding that Husband did not dissipate marital funds, the award of alimony, and the division of marital property. Finding that the award of support and division of property is supported by the evidence and consistent with the applicable law, we affirm the judgment.