Defendant, Wayne Daryl Potee, pleaded guilty in case numbers 2015-CR-185 and 2015- CR-186 to one count of selling 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine in a Drug-Free School Zone (“DFSZ”) and one count of selling less than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine in a DFSZ. Defendant received an effective 15-year sentence to serve at 100 percent for his convictions. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h)(1), which the trial court denied following two evidentiary hearings. Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision. In his brief to this Court, Defendant acknowledges that he has no right of appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, see State v. Bobo, 672 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023). He nonetheless asserts that the trial court’s ruling was fundamentally illegal and asks this Court to grant a writ of certiorari. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we deny Defendant’s request for a writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jaquan Gathing, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Dyer County Circuit Court jury convicted the Defendant, Robert Bevis, Jr., of two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of thirty-five years at eighty-five percent for the attempted murder convictions and a consecutive ten-year sentence at one hundred percent for the firearm conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court failed to declare a mistrial in response to numerous outbursts by the victims’ families; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) the trial court erred in overruling the defense’s objection when the prosecutor misrepresented evidence during closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and attempted first degree murder without serious bodily injury. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 4 to reflect the accurate conviction offense of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony.

The Defendant, Ralph Lee Atkins, Jr., was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210 (2018). The Defendant was sentenced to twenty-two years’ incarceration. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellees, a married couple at the time, purchased two properties. Appellants, Husband’s adult daughters from a previous relationship, sought imposition of resulting trusts on the respective properties. Appellants, each of whom lived in one of the properties, maintained that they had agreements with their father whereby they would own the properties so long as they paid all expenses thereon. Appellee/Wife disputed such arrangement and maintained that the disputed properties were marital properties. Because of the suspect circumstances surrounding the purchases of the properties and the disputed testimony regarding any agreements by and between Husband and Appellants, Wife argued that the properties were not subject to the imposition of the equitable remedy of resulting trusts. The trial court denied Appellants’ respective petitions to establish resulting trusts, and they appeal. Because Appellants failed to meet the burden of proof to establish resulting trusts, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

A general contractor sued two business entities and their sole owner for breach of contract. The defendants denied liability and filed a counter-complaint. Four years later, the contractor moved for sanctions under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 16.06. The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendants and dismissed their counterclaims with prejudice due to their repeated failure to comply with pretrial orders. The defendants moved to set aside the final judgment. The trial court granted the owner relief from the judgment. But it refused to set aside the judgment against his two companies. And it granted the contractor summary judgment against the owner on the remaining claims. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Joseph Floyd, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking postconviction relief from his convictions of driving under the influence (two counts) and reckless driving. He received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which was suspended after service of seven days. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call his ex-girlfriend as a witness at trial and claims she would have established that the Petitioner was not the driver at the time of the offense. The Petitioner also argues the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because the court initially “advised [the Petitioner] that it would accept an affidavit of [his exgirlfriend] as a substitute for live testimony” and later denied the Petitioner relief for failure to produce witnesses at the evidentiary hearing. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Question: Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-53-110 as amended by Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023 apply to a home-rule municipality that is divided geographically (as opposed to being divided by population) into three (3) districts and that elects all the members—e.g., five (5) members—of its Board of Commissioners at-large?

Opinion: Tennessee Code Annotated § 6-53-110 as amended by Chapter 391 of the Public Acts of 2023 applies to all municipalities, including home-rule municipalities, that require candidates to be nominated from districts, regardless of the manner in which the municipalities have established their districts.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee from a circuit court judge’s denial of a motion to recuse. The Appellant moved for recusal based on the judge’s setting a trial date, based on the judge’s having filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Responsibility against the Appellant’s attorney in an unrelated case, and based on criticism of the attorney in an unrelated case. The judge denied the recusal on the merits and also due to a failure to follow the procedural requirements of Rule 10B. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to recuse.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. In life, sometimes it’s better to show up late than not at all. But in law, tardiness can be costly. Here, the parties’ counsel received several extensions of this court’s briefing deadlines. In the meantime, the clock struck midnight on the underlying issue. As a result, this appeal is now moot.