This appeal concerns the enforceability of a promissory note and a coguarantor’s right to seek contribution from another guarantor. The note and guaranties were assigned several times and, at one point, held by the coguarantor. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded on the undisputed facts that the promissory note had been discharged and that there was no right to contribution. We conclude that the promissory note was not discharged but agree that there was no right to contribution.

This appeal involves a bid awarded by a county finance department and upheld by the county’s finance committee after a bid protest hearing. One of the service providers whose bid was not selected filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in chancery court. After reviewing the administrative record, the chancery court concluded that the finance committee’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by material evidence and remanded for the county to rebid the contract. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A trial court ordered a defendant to pay a set amount of criminal restitution but did not state payment terms or consider the defendant’s ability to pay. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling the restitution order was not a final order because it did not include payment terms. We hold the restitution order was a final order even though it did not include payment terms. See State v. Cavin, No. E2020-01333-SC-R11-CD, ___ S.W.3d ____, 2023 WL _________ (Tenn. ______, 2023). The date for payment of the restitution was, by default, the expiration of the defendant’s sentence based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304(g). The trial court erred by failing to consider the defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay when setting the amount of restitution as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304(d). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, vacate the trial court’s restitution order, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Jasmin Lawan Towles, was convicted by a Fayette County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued at $1000 or less and sentenced by the trial court to 11 months, twenty-nine days at 75% in the county jail, with the sentence suspended after service of 100 days and the Defendant placed on probation supervised by community corrections. The sole issue he raises in this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Billy W. Locke, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his two motions to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following our review of the briefs of the parties, the record, and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

Marcus Johnson, Petitioner, sought habeas corpus relief for the third time after his convictions for one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. See State v. Marcus Johnson, No. W2002-00987- CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22080778, at *14 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 4, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2004); Marcus Johnson v. State, No. W2007-02664-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 4866817, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2008), no perm. app. filed. The petition was dismissed without a hearing after the habeas corpus court determined that Petitioner was merely raising issues that had previously been litigated. We determine that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition and affirm the judgment of that court.

Appellants, purchasers of several unimproved lots, filed suit against Appellee title company. Appellants asserted five counts against Appellee based on Appellee’s alleged failure to disclose the existence of a lien lis pendens on the lots. The trial court dismissed all but one of the counts against Appellee and certified its orders of partial dismissal as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. We conclude that the trial court improvidently certified its orders as final and dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

This is a criminal contempt case. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s finding that he is guilty of four counts of criminal contempt for violating the trial court’s orders regarding medical treatment for the minor child. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The primary issue presented is whether a criminal restitution order is a final and appealable order under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 when the order directs a defendant to pay a set amount of restitution without payment terms. A trial court ordered the defendant who had pleaded guilty to burglary and theft to pay $5,500 in restitution during his probationary period. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the restitution order was not a final and appealable order because it lacked payment terms. We hold that the restitution order was a final order. Tennessee’s criminal restitution statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304, allows—but does not require—trial courts to specify payment terms. Here, the trial court’s restitution order resolved all issues, was reasonable, and appropriately considered the victim’s pecuniary loss and the defendant’s ability to pay.

For the week of May 29, 2023 - June 2, 2023