In this divorce matter, the parties engaged in protracted litigation concerning the initial amount of the father’s child support obligation before the trial court set the amount of child support to be paid. Meanwhile, the father sought a modification of his child support obligation. The trial court determined that its order entered on January 27, 2014, was final as to the amount of the father’s initial child support obligation because the order left no remaining issues to be determined. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Officers stopped Jermaine Jones’ vehicle to investigate allegations that he committed fourth-degree assault, a misdemeanor in Kentucky. During the stop, they discovered a weapon on Jones, a convicted felon. Indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm, Jones moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the stop on the theory that the Fourth Amendment bars investigatory stops prompted by a completed misdemeanor. The district court reluctantly agreed. Because the Fourth Amendment contains no such rule, we reverse.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Reginald D. Tumlin, of two counts of child abuse, one count of criminally negligent homicide, and one count of aggravated child neglect. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions. State v. Reginald D. Tumlin, No. E2013-01452-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 7073752, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Dec. 15, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 14, 2015). The Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner maintains on appeal that his attorneys’ representation was deficient and he was prejudiced by the deficiencies. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Willie James Bradley, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and his “motion to change order.” The Petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated because the trial court did not inform him that he was subject to lifetime community supervision as a result of his guilty plea. The Petitioner also argues that his judgments were improperly changed by extra-judicial agencies. Following our review, we affirm.

Grants & Denials List

March 16, 2020 - March 20, 2020

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Antoine Hinton, of first degree felony murder; especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony; and reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and he received an effective sentence of life plus twenty-eight years in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury as provided by State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), and that the evidence is insufficient to support his murder conviction because the underlying felony was complete at the time of the victim’s death. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the Appellant’s convictions and his total effective sentence of life plus twenty-eight years but remand the case to the trial court for amendment of the judgments to reflect that the Appellant’s conviction of aggravated kidnapping in count three is merged into his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping in count two and for correction of the judgments regarding concurrent and consecutive sentencing.

The appeal arises from a divorce. Acting pro se, the former husband seeks review, of what we cannot be certain. Because his brief falls well short of the requirements of both the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this Court, we dismiss the appeal.

The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of E.R. (mother) and T.S. (father) with respect to H.S. (the child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother and father’s parental rights on multiple grounds. By the same quantum of proof, the court determined that termination of mother and father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child. Only mother appeals. We affirm.

In this termination of parental rights action, the mother has appealed the trial court’s grant of a default judgment to the petitioners following the mother’s filing of an answer that did not contain her signature in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1- 117(o). Although we determine that the trial court properly granted a default judgment to the petitioners based upon the mother’s failure to file a proper answer within the time allowed, we vacate the trial court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights, determining that the appellate record is insufficient to afford appropriate review of the statutory grounds for termination and best interest analysis.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Isaac Hobbs pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court accepted his plea and, finding Hobbs to be an armed career criminal, sentenced Hobbs to fifteen years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Hobbs appealed. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, which held that, to obtain a conviction under § 922(g), the government must prove that the defendant “knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019). Here, that would require proof that Hobbs knew he was a felon. Hobbs now challenges the district court’s jurisdiction and the validity of his plea, basing these claims on Rehaif. Because Rehaif does not support Hobbs’s challenges, we AFFIRM.