Father appeals the denial of his petition in opposition to a proposed relocation by Mother and his petition to change custody of the children. After considering the testimony of over ten witnesses, the trial court ruled that the children’s best interests were served by allowing Mother to relocate and by her remaining the children’s primary residential parent. The trial court also awarded Mother considerable attorney’s fees, including fees incurred in defending against a dependency and neglect action that had eventually been dismissed, with the related visitation and custody issues transferred to the trial court. Discerning no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decisions, we affirm. We deny, however, Mother’s request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

For the week of January 29, 2024 - February 2, 2024

The Appellants seek accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to recuse. Because the filing fails to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

The Claims Commissioner dismissed the claimant’s claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Attorney Russell E. Edwards seeks review of the trial court’s order granting his motion to be relieved as counsel for Sergio Bermudez, the defendant in the underlying case, and prohibiting Attorney Edwards from practicing in the Criminal Court for Sumner County. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering Attorney Edwards be barred from practicing law in the Criminal Court for Sumner County. We therefore issue a writ of certiorari and order that the trial court’s order prohibiting Attorney Edwards from practicing in the Sumner County Criminal Court is vacated.

This appeal arises from an order granting, among other discovery sanctions, a default judgment against Husband in a divorce proceeding. Husband questions whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering sanctions against him. Because the trial court did not engage in the necessary analysis regarding its reasoning for granting the discovery sanctions, we vacate the sanctions order, as well as the subsequent orders that followed, including the order granting the parties’ divorce. This disposition pretermits inquiry into issues Husband has raised on appeal with respect to trial court determinations that followed the sanctions. Moreover, as to a remaining matter raised by Husband on appeal, we conclude that the issue is waived due to Husband’s failure to comply with applicable briefing requirements.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

This is an appeal in a lawyer-disciplinary proceeding involving Tennessee attorney Thomas Fleming Mabry. In March 2019, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Mr. Mabry charging him with numerous infractions based on complaints from several different parties. After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Mabry refused to participate in depositions, either in-person, telephonically, or over videoconference. At his final disciplinary hearing conducted via Zoom, Mr. Mabry briefly connected, by audio only, and objected to holding the hearing virtually and to the Board introducing depositions of unavailable witnesses. He requested an indefinite continuance. He ended the connection. The hearing continued without Mr. Mabry’s participation, and the Hearing Panel found him in violation of multiple Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. The panel permanently disbarred Mr. Mabry and ordered him to make restitution. Mr. Mabry appealed to the chancery court claiming several procedural violations, but the chancery court found no merit in his arguments. Mr. Mabry has now filed a direct appeal to this Court, raising the same procedural challenges. Upon review, we agree with the judgments of the Hearing Panel and chancery court—disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Mr. Mabry’s actions.

Robert Winters, Defendant, appeals from the dismissal of a motion filed under Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the motion, he challenged his sentence for aggravated robbery, stemming from State v. Winters, 137 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2004). After a thorough review, we determine that Defendant failed to state a colorable claim for relief, attempted to challenge a sentence that was already expired, and raised claims that were previously determined. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, G’wayne Williams, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions for three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony; three counts of rape, a Class B felony; three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, a Class C felony; six counts of incest, a Class C felony; three counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony; and two counts of violating the sex offender registry, a Class E felony, and resulting effective sentence of sixty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to sever the counts for violating the sex offender registry, which prejudiced the jury, and for failing to make contemporaneous objections and preserve objections to inadmissible evidence in his motion for new trial, which resulted in waiver on direct appeal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.