The Petitioner, Yangreek Tut Wal, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his guilty pleas to two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of especially aggravated robbery and resulting effective sentence of forty years to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which resulted in his guilty pleas being unknowing and involuntary. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Santos Morales, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B Felony. See T.C.A § 39-13-504 (2018). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years at 100% service and ordered the Defendant to register as a sexual offender. See T.C.A § 40-39-201 (2019). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Curtis Keller, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and evading arrest. In this appeal, the petitioner alleges that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and that the post-conviction court erred by denying his motions for a continuance and to inspect grand jury materials. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Petitioner, Delshun Jones, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Lamar Hudson, filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his guilty plea for attempted second degree murder and the resulting ten-year sentence. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to obtain body camera footage and that the resulting guilty plea was, therefore, entered involuntarily. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the Petitioner relief.

The Defendant-Appellant, Calvin M. Courter, pleaded guilty to reckless aggravated assault, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102, for which he received a three-year probationary sentence, with an additional 30 days to be served on weekends. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Week of June 28, 2021 - July 2, 2021

Objectors to a class action settlement in the In re Flint Water Cases petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel the district court: “(1) to cease holding off-the-record substantive ex parte meetings that exclude petitioners’ counsel; (2) to order the participants at the March 1 and May 3 conferences to recount for the record their recollection of what transpired at those conferences; (3) to order settling parties to identify any other substantive unrecorded conferences since February 26, 2021; and (4) to refrain from continuing to prescribe or dictate the litigation strategy of the parties in advocating for the settlement.” We deny the petition.

In this post-divorce dispute, the wife challenges the trial court’s determination that she was in contempt of the divorce decree for failing to return certain personal property to the husband. We find no error in the trial court’s contempt ruling or in its denial of the wife’s motion for Rule 60 relief. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer declined to authorize certain medical treatment prescribed by an authorized treating physician based on the opinion of another physician that the recommended treatment was contraindicated due to a diagnosed psychological condition and was not medically necessary under the circumstances. In response to an “emergency motion to halt unsafe, contraindicated procedure or, in the alternative, to hold employer harmless for bad outcome,” the trial court concluded the testimony and opinions offered by the treating physicians outweighed those of the employer’s expert, and it ordered the employer to authorize the treatment. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.