Appellant, George Robert Hamby, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced appellant as a Range II offender to twelve years in confinement. On appeal, appellant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in not accepting a negotiated guilty plea; (2) the trial court erred in denying appellant?s motion for judgment of acquittal; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing. Following our review of the evidence and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, James Harrell Driver, of violating the Sexual Offender Registry residency restriction. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a Range II offender, to four-years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court improperly imposed a four-year sentence; and (3) Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-211(c) is unconstitutional as applied in this case. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, David Wayne Britt, appeals the Circuit Court of Hardeman County‘s denial of his third petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court‘s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State‘s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Alejandro Neave Vasquez, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free school zone and possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free school zone. He received concurrent twenty-year sentences for each count, for a total effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief.

This case involves a petition for grandparent visitation filed by the paternal grandparents of the child at issue. The trial court granted the petition for visitation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306. Because the trial court did not make appropriate written findings in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, we do not reach the merits of this appeal. We vacate and remand for appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In this premises liability action, Appellant Phyllis Smith (“Ms. Smith”) appeals the trial court’s finding that Shelby County (“the County”) is immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. Because we conclude that the order appealed from is not a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s complaint in a negligence case. After Appellant’s case was dismissed, he filed a notice of appeal pro se. Significant procedural shortcomings in Appellant’s brief on appeal prevent this Court from reaching any substantive issues. We therefore affirm.

Plaintiff was terminated from his employment as a City of Clarksville police officer in August 2010. The trial court affirmed, and Plaintiff appealed. We determined that the City had failed to follow its disciplinary procedures when it terminated Plaintiff?s employment, vacated the termination, and remanded the matter. Upon remand, the City upheld termination of Plaintiff, and the trial court again affirmed. We affirm.

This appeal involves the trial court?s denial of a recusal motion. We affirm the trial court?s decision to deny the motion to recuse, but vacate the order entered by the trial court while the recusal motion was pending.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Willie L. Taylor, was convicted of aggravated burglary and aggravated assault, both Class C felonies. He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to fourteen years for each conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated burglary conviction and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.