An employee injured his left shoulder in 2005. He returned to work for his employer and settled his workers’ compensation claim. In 2011, he had recurrent symptoms in the shoulder. Eventually, he made a claim for benefits, alleging that he had sustained a new injury. His employer contended that his symptoms were caused by the earlier injury and that he was entitled only to medical care under the previous settlement. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a new injury and awarded permanent partial and temporary total disability benefits. The employer has appealed.

The defendant, Leslie Allen Ware, Jr., appeals his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of conspiracy to possess 26 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of 26 grams or more of cocaine for sale or delivery, maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances are used or sold, facilitation of theft, facilitation of conspiracy to commit robbery, and two counts of criminally negligent homicide. The defendant received an effective sentence of 36 years. He claims on appeal that the sentences imposed by the trial court were excessive.

Defendant, Christian Philip Van Camp, was indicted for driving under the influence, driving while his blood alcohol was in excess of the legal limit, and failing to maintain his proper lane of traffic. Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop, arguing that it was not properly supported by either probable cause or reasonable suspicion. After a hearing, the trial court denied his motion. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted as charged.

Petitioner, Thaddeus Johnson, was convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. For these crimes, he received a life sentence and a consecutive twenty-five year sentence. Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence.

Appellant, James D. Wooden, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, as permitted by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, for lack of jurisdiction because the sentences have already expired. Although the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion, we determine Appellant has failed to state a colorable claim entitling him to relief and, therefore, affirm the denial of the motion.

Appellant, John Talley, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences, imposed over twenty-eight years ago, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The trial court found it lacked jurisdiction because the sentences have already expired and because the trial court could not determine that the “sentence[s] are illegal.” We determine, because of the broadness of Rule 36.1, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion and that Appellant stated a colorable claim, as currently defined.

Defendant, Coty Shane Smith, pled guilty to one count of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by improperly applying an enhancement factor and imposing a sentence that is disproportionate to the sentence received by one of the co-defendants in his case and to sentences received in other second degree murder convictions throughout the state.

Petitioner, Misty Jane Brunelle, was convicted of three counts of aggravated child abuse in relation to broken bones sustained by her infant daughter. Her convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Misty Brunelle, E2006-00467-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 2026616 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 22, 2007) (“Brunelle I”). Petitioner then filed a post-conviction petition, which was denied.

This case involves the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The trial court found multiple statutory grounds for the termination of Mother’s and Father’s rights. The court also found termination of the parents’ rights to be in the children’s best interest. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that Mother and Father abandoned their children by willfully failing to support them.