Appellant father filed a complaint for damages against the defendant county, alleging that the negligence of a county employee caused the death of his son. The county filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based upon sovereign immunity. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the county employee‘s actions constituted intentional torts for which immunity was not removed, and that the employee‘s actions were outside the scope of his employment. We reverse and remand.

This case involves a petition for grandparent visitation filed by the great-grandparents of the children at issue. The trial court concluded that great-grandparents do not qualify as “grandparents” under Tennessee?s grandparent visitation statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306. Accordingly, the court concluded that the great-grandparents lacked standing to pursue their petition and dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal results from the trial court?s denial of Appellant William R. F.?s (“Father”) motion for recusal. Having reviewed the trial court?s ruling on the motion for recusal pursuant to the de novo standard of review required under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Talmadge Hurt, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury in September of 2009 for aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery. He was tried with co-defendant Adrian Chaney for events that occurred at La Playita Mexican Restaurant in Memphis in April of 2007. The jury convicted Defendant of facilitation of aggravated robbery and facilitation of attempted aggravated robbery. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to consecutive sentences of ten years for facilitation of aggravated robbery and eight years for facilitation of attempted aggravated robbery.

The Defendant, Mikel C. Hamrick, pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, especially aggravated stalking, domestic assault, and theft and received an effective four-year sentence to be served consecutively to the sentences he received in two unrelated cases. Less than four years later, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct an illegal sentence on the ground that he pleaded guilty to the aggravated burglary of his own home, a legal impossibility.

The Defendant, Damien Clark, was convicted of second degree murder in 2006 and received a twenty-year sentence at 100% service. Seven years later, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct an illegal sentence because his sentence was in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120(g) (2014). The trial court summarily denied relief for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying him relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, criminal exposure of another to the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), and aggravated statutory rape. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions.

During the search of a recreational vehicle (“RV”) belonging to the defendant, Tommy Kaye Thompson, police uncovered approximately eight ounces of marijuana, two sets of scales, plastic baggies, and numerous firearms. The defendant challenged the search on the grounds that the search warrant, which was targeted at recovering security equipment allegedly stolen by the defendant’s grandson, was issued for a search of the house on the defendant’s property but did not extend to the RV, which was parked on a neighboring lot and tethered to the defendant’s property through an electrical cord.

The Defendant, Justin Allen Stratton, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder by a Washington County Criminal Court jury. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2014). He was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that plain error exists because the jury was not instructed regarding corroboration of accomplice testimony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.