Elizabeth Christmas and John M. Kington were romantically involved for many years. When the parties’ relationship ended, Dr. Kington reported to the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office (“the Sheriff’s Office”) the theft of several items of jewelry from his home. At the conclusion of the Sheriff’s Office’s investigation, a grand jury indicted Ms. Christmas for theft of property valued at more than $250,000. The State of Tennessee (“the State”) later dismissed the charge of theft before the case proceeded to trial. Ms. Christmas subsequently filed a complaint and an amended complaint against Dr. Kington in the Hamilton County Circuit Court (“Trial Court”) alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Dr. Kington filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Ms. Christmas appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The petitioner, Glenard Cortez Thorne, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Davidson County Criminal Court, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because newly discovered evidence exists in his case. After our review, we conclude the petition is untimely and does not present a cognizable claim for coram nobis relief. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Mack Mandrell Loyde, 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 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant, Derrick Johnson, of conspiracy to possess with the intent to sell 150 grams or more of heroin in Count 1 and conspiracy to possess with the intent to deliver 150 grams or more of heroin in Count 2, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to present evidence of the November 19, 2017 phone conversations on redirect examination; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to replay the October 25, 2017 phone recordings for the jury; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor, during its rebuttal closing argument, improperly commented on the Defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an effective eighteen-year sentence. After review, we remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms in Counts 1 and 2 as specified in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant, Casey DeWayne Hodge, appeals one certified question of law related to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss in which he alleged a speedy trial violation and two certified questions of law related to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress in which he challenged the constitutionality of a traffic stop. Discerning no error, we affirm. We remand for entry of judgments on Counts 2 and 3 reflecting that the charges were dismissed in accordance with the plea agreement.

Defendant, James Stephen Carder, was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury for 36 counts of theft of property in amounts ranging from less than $1,000 to $60,000 and two counts of aggregate theft in an amount greater than $60,000 but less than $250,000. Five of the theft counts were dismissed after the close of the State’s proof, and a petit jury convicted Defendant of 24 theft counts and both aggregate theft counts. The trial court merged those individual theft convictions involving the same victim and also merged the two counts of aggregate theft, and the court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to an effective 20 years’ incarceration and ordered him to pay $134,990 in restitution. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that law enforcement improperly investigated the case and interfered with his contracts. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of amended judgment forms to reflect the merger of the 24 individual theft convictions into count 37, the one aggregate theft conviction.

The pro se Defendant, Marquette Benson, aka Marquette Mukes, appeals the summary denial of his September 6, 2022 Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because it is clear that the Defendant’s September 6, 2022 filing is merely a request for the trial court to reconsider its denial of the Defendant’s first Rule 36.1 motion, which was summarily denied on October 4, 2021 for failure to state a colorable claim, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the defendant, Rodney Paul Beech, pled guilty to driving under the influence (“DUI”) and DUI per se and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to probation after service of forty-eight hours in jail. As a condition of his plea, the defendant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based on lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop of his vehicle. Upon our review, we conclude the defendant failed to properly certify the question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2). Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner, Erick Bailey, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for fingerprint analysis under the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021. After review, we conclude the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing the petition and affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The plaintiffs, a prospective adoptive couple and six other Tennessee taxpayers, brought this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147, which allows private child-placing agencies that receive state funding to deny services to prospective foster or adoptive parents based upon the agencies’ religious beliefs. A three-judge panel concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. We have determined that the plaintiffs have standing and reverse the decision of the three-judge panel.