This appeal arises from the trial court’s finding that grounds exist for terminating a mother and father’s parental rights to four children, and its finding that termination is in the children’s best interest. In this appeal, the parents contest only the best-interest determination. They contend termination was not in the children’s best interests because, inter alia, the Department of Children’s Services failed to use “reasonable efforts” to help them make a lasting adjustment to their circumstances. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the grounds of severe abuse and persistent conditions were proven and that termination of the parents’ rights is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of both the mother and the father’s parental rights.

The Petitioner-appellee, Marty Holland, pled guilty to attempted first-degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. As part of the plea, he agreed to serve a seventeen-year sentence. He also agreed to serve the sentence concurrently with a previously imposed federal sentence for an unrelated bank robbery charge and consecutive to a state sentence for an unrelated theft charge. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post- conviction court’s denial of the petition but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding one issue: whether the Petitioner was fully informed of the circumstances of agreeing to serve concurrent state and federal sentences. This issue was not raised by the Petitioner in his post-conviction petition or on appeal, was not argued by either party during the post-conviction hearing or on appeal, and was not decided by the post-conviction court. Based on our review of the law and the record before us on appeal, we hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals was without authority under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1995 to remand this case for consideration of an issue that was not raised by either party. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand this case, and we reinstate the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

Following a jury trial in 1990, Oscar Smith was sentenced to receive the death penalty in each of three first degree murder convictions in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of death in State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. 1993). Mr. Smith is scheduled to be executed February 4, 2021. This appeal by Mr. Smith is from the trial court’s summary dismissal of “Oscar Smith’s Omnibus Request for Relief on His Jury Claims,” (hereinafter “Omnibus Request”). After oral arguments and review of the briefs and the appellate record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, and dismiss the appeal in part.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court concluded that three grounds supported the termination of the father’s rights and also concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. Although we reverse one ground for termination found by the trial court, we affirm the trial court as to the remaining grounds. Further, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s holding that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. In a famous tort case, a plaintiff was hit by gunfire when two hunters negligently discharged their shotguns in his direction. The plaintiff could not identify which of the two hunters had fired the injurious shot, but the court held that both could be found jointly liable. See Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 2–5 (Cal. 1948). The plaintiff in this case, Ali Pineda, asks us to adopt (and expand) something like this rule for his constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Three off-duty sheriff’s deputies were providing outside security at a Cincinnati night club. Pineda alleges that one of them hit him on the back of the head with a baton and caused a serious brain injury. He brought an excessive-force claim against all three deputies. At the summary-judgment stage, however, Pineda did not identify the specific deputy who struck the blow. He argues that he should be allowed to proceed to trial against all three deputies even though, on his own telling, two are free of fault. We disagree. Unlike the tortfeasors in Summers who had both been negligent, only one deputy in this case allegedly committed a constitutional violation. Because Pineda did not present evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to identify the deputy who did so, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to all three deputies.

The Defendant, James Edward Knight, pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, in exchange for a sentence of nine years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the sentence be served in confinement, which the Defendant now challenges. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Johntel Billings, was indicted for one count of aggravated assault (Count 1), one count of attempted aggravated robbery (Count 2), one count of simple assault (Count 3), and one count of vandalism (Count 4). A Madison County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated assault, simple assault, and vandalism. The trial court imposed a four-year sentence with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support her aggravated assault conviction. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in sentencing her to four years of confinement, rather than probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted the Defendant, Tevin Mantez Harris, of first degree premeditated murder and imposed the statutory sentence of life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; and (3) the trial court improperly permitted the State to refresh a witness’s memory. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Appellant appeals the denial of her motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Appellant's brief fails to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal.

This case involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. In the petition, the Department alleged five grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court found that all five grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights. As a result, the juvenile court granted the petition, and the mother appealed. We affirm the juvenile court’s ruling and remand.