The defendant, Kentavis Antwon Jones, appeals his Madison County Circuit Court jury convictions of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, theft, driving on a revoked license, and violation of the window tint law, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The defendant also raises the issue of merger, arguing that the trial court properly merged his convictions. Because the trial court erred by merging certain firearm convictions and because the judgments contain clerical errors, we reverse the improper mergers and remand the case for the entry of corrected judgments. We affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects.

Following a hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees resulting from a discovery dispute, the trial judge or his office contacted an attorney for the defendants to obtain certain discovery responses that had not been filed with the court. The defendants’ attorney responded by email with the requested documents, carbon-copying plaintiffs’ counsel on the email. The trial court then entered an order awarding the plaintiffs attorney’s fees in which the fees awarded were only a small portion of those requested. The plaintiffs filed a motion to recuse, citing the communication between the defendants’ attorney and the trial judge. The trial court denied the motion for recusal. We agree with the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that recusal was not required.

This interlocutory appeal presents a procedural issue of first impression: Can a medical provider who has provided treatment to an injured worker intervene in an action pending in the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to protect its interest in the payment of medical bills arising from such treatment? The trial court answered that question in the affirmative and granted the motion to intervene, and the employer has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the pertinent statutory provisions, applicable rules, and relevant precedent, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

This appeal arises from the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor children upon the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, abandonment by failure to visit, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistent conditions, putative father grounds, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of and financial responsibility for the children. The juvenile court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We reverse the statutory grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and persistent conditions. We also reverse the ground of abandonment by failure to visit and the putative father ground of failure to seek reasonable visitation as they pertain to the child, Samyra. We affirm the remaining grounds for the termination of the father’s parental rights, as well as the juvenile court’s determination that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest.

The Petitioner, Steven Skinner, appeals the summary dismissal of his third untimely petition for writ of error coram nobis. Upon review, we affirm.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Quincino Waide first encountered the Lexington police after a shed fire occurred on the property next to his. Although no one suspected Waide of having anything to do with the fire, the fire investigator noticed surveillance cameras attached to Waide’s duplex residence and asked Waide to turn over his digital video recorder (DVR) to see what it might reveal about the shed fire. When Waide declined, the investigator sought a warrant (the DVR warrant) to enter Waide’s apartment and retrieve the DVR.

The affidavit in support of the DVR warrant, however, lacked reliable evidence to establish probable cause to believe that the shed fire was due to arson or any other criminal activity. A state magistrate nevertheless issued the warrant. When the fire investigator and five other officials with the Lexington Police and Fire Departments arrived at Waide’s duplex to execute the DVR warrant, their threatened entry and a pointed inquiry about whether Waide had drugs on the premises caused Waide to admit that his apartment contained a small amount of marijuana. This confession led to the issuance of two subsequent warrants (the narcotics warrants) to search both units of Waide’s duplex for narcotics. The searches yielded a firearm plus large quantities of drugs and money.

After the district court denied Waide’s multiple motions to suppress evidence, he entered into a conditional guilty plea to the offense of possessing cocaine and heroin with the intent to distribute the drugs, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and to the offense of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).

Waide now appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to suppress the unlawfully collected evidence.

Following a trial, the jury convicted Wendolyn Lee, Defendant, of rape, statutory rape by an authority figure, and incest. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twelve years with 100% service for rape and five years as a Range I standard offender for both statutory rape by an authority figure and incest. The court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty-two years, and ordered Defendant to be on community supervision for life for the rape and incest convictions. The court also sentenced Defendant to a consecutive term of 210 days for multiple counts of direct criminal contempt of court. On appeal, Defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that Tennessee courts lack territorial jurisdiction to try the indicted offenses, that the rape charge was untimely because “adult rapes must be reported within three years,” that he did not receive a speedy trial, that the jury was prejudiced because Defendant’s other stepdaughter testified in rebuttal that she was raped by Defendant, and that the court erred by not allowing Defendant to represent himself. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a conservatorship proceeding in which the appellants filed a complaint to set aside a trust established by the ward, along with a motion to recuse the trial judge. The trial judge entered orders dismissing the complaint, resolving various other matters, and closing the conservatorship, without entering any order mentioning the motion for recusal. We vacate the orders entered by the trial court while the recusal motion remained pending and remand for further proceedings before a different trial judge.

This is an employment contract dispute involving the interplay of a paid sick leave provision and a bonus compensation provision. The appellant, Keith Cousins (“Cousins”), was hired by a real estate business in 2017. He signed a two-year contract which included provisions for salary, bonuses, and paid sick leave. After being with the defendant company for only a few weeks, Cousins suffered a major heart attack and, ultimately, never returned to work. A dispute regarding his compensation arose and in July of 2017, Cousins filed suit against his former employer for, inter alia, breach of contract. The trial court determined that the company breached Cousins’ contract and awarded him some damages, but not the full balance of the two-year contract as Cousins requested. Both Cousins and the company appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

For the week of February 6, 2023 - February 10, 2023