This is an Appeal by the State in which we are ask to conclude that a dismissal by a general sessions court for lack of probable cause is subject to de novo review by a circuit court, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-108. After the Madison County General Sessions Court dismissed the charge against Defendant, Earlesa McClellan, the district attorney general forwent a grand jury indictment and instead appealed to the Madison County Circuit Court. Finding that an appeal of a general sessions court’s probable cause determination to the circuit court is not proper procedure, the circuit court dismissed the appeal. The State now appeals to this Court. After a thorough review of the record, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The pro se Petitioner, Mario Bowles, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, that the post- conviction court judge was prejudiced against him, that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, and that the trial and post-conviction courts lacked jurisdiction over the case. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Myron Lorenzo Johnson, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the murder convictions and sentenced the Petitioner to life plus sixty years. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition requesting DNA analysis of evidence pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court summarily denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against Francisca Hernandez-Hernandez and her daughter. Hernandez applied for asylum and withholding of removal.1 The immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied relief and ordered Hernandez and her daughter removed to Guatemala. We DENY the petition for review.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Shaughn Walker, of robbery, and he was sentenced to serve ten years in the Community Corrections program. The Defendant appeals, asserting the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the victim’s identification from a photographic lineup; that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the Defendant to sit at the table with counsel during trial; that the trial court erred in denying a continuance, additional funding, or other relief after eyewitness identification expert Dr. David Ross used the allocated funding prior to trial and refused to testify absent additional payment; and that he is entitled to cumulative error relief. After a thorough review of the record, we discern no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The employee, an ironworker, was injured when a metal panel fell from a roof, hit the ground, and struck him on the head and left shoulder, causing him to twist and fall on his right knee. The employee received authorized medical treatment for the knee injury and was eventually placed at maximum medical improvement and returned to work with no restrictions by his authorized physician. Upon returning to work, the employee reported experiencing pain in his neck and shoulder blades with numbness in his arms. The employee did not request medical treatment for his neck, upper back, and arm symptoms until more than one year after the work accident. The employer denied medical treatment for those conditions, citing a lack of medical proof establishing causation. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined that the employee was entitled to medical benefits for his alleged neck, upper back, and arm injuries without coming forward with any evidence of medical causation. The employer has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

For the week of September 27, 2021 - October 1, 2021

The State of Tennessee appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of her car. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred because the police dog performed a reliable “free air sniff,” which resulted in probable cause to search the Defendant’s car. We dismiss the appeal because the State is not entitled to an appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) because the record fails to reflect that the trial court dismissed the relevant indictment counts.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the two minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); (2) substantial non-compliance with the requirements of the permanency plans, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2); (3) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3)(A); and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(14). Appellant/Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of: (1) substantial non-compliance with the requirements of the permanency plans; and (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness of ability to assume custody. Both Mother and Father also appeal the trial court’s determination that termination of their respective parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment. In a dispute involving unpaid invoices for medical supplies, the trial court ruled in favor of the appellee, finding that the appellant was personally liable for the indebtedness. In so doing, the trial court relied upon the unpaid invoices that were previously found to be admitted by the court pursuant to Rule 36.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure after the appellant failed to respond to the appellee’s request for admission. The appellant now appeals. Based on the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.