Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tevin Dominique Lumpkin, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder. He received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother filed a post-divorce petition seeking an increase in child support. Father opposed the petition, insisting that Mother was voluntarily underemployed. The trial court found that there was a significant variance between the current obligation and the obligation set by the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The trial court further found that Mother was not voluntarily underemployed and ordered an increase in Father's child support obligation. Father appealed. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that Mother is not voluntarily underemployed, we affirm.

Petitioner, Timothy Lamont Thompson, was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault after a jury trial. The trial court sentenced him as a repeat violent offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole and fifteen years, respectively. After an unsuccessful direct appeal process, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief thereafter. Appealing the denial of relief, petitioner raises the following allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure to request a second preliminary hearing or to explain why this was not possible; (2) failure to schedule a polygraph examination for petitioner; (3) failure to coordinate a physical line-up; (4) questioning petitioner's religious beliefs; and (5) failure to withdraw from petitioner's case upon request. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Raymond A. Klein (“the Defendant”) proceeded to trial on one count of aggravated sexual battery and was convicted as charged. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, John Eugene Grigsby, was convicted of attempted second degree murder and reckless endangerment. Appellant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily dismissed, holding that appellant had failed to state a colorable claim. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his motion. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Garner S. Gordon, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Davidson County Criminal Court conviction of aggravated assault. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A jury convicted the defendant of three counts of facilitation of first degree murder and one count of facilitation of aggravated robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and the sentence. On appeal to this Court, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the admission into evidence of an autopsy report through the testimony of a medical examiner who did not perform the autopsy violated his right to confront the witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. The defendant also argues that the warrantless search of his home by officers who entered the home after the first responding officer constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, so the trial court should have suppressed the evidence seized in that search. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the autopsy report is not testimonial under Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012), so its admission into evidence did not violate the Defendant‘s rights under the Confrontation Clause. We further hold that, where the responding officer‘s initial entry into the home was justified by exigent circumstances, the subsequent entry into the home by other officers constituted a mere continuation of the initial officer‘s lawful entry into the home. Consequently, the trial court did not err by denying the Defendant‘s motion to suppress the evidence that was in plain view and within the scope of the exigent circumstances search. Finally, we hold that the admission into evidence of items that were not in plain view, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error. Accordingly, we affirm.

Six women today filed a federal lawsuit claiming the University of Tennessee has created a student culture that enables sexual assaults by student-athletes, The Tennessean reports. The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs identified only as "Jane Does," says the university uses an adjudication process that is “biased against victims" and also accuses five school athletes of sexual assault. “Athletes knew in advance that UT would support them even after a complaint of sexual assault (and) arrange for top quality legal representation”, plaintiffs say in the lawsuit.

Tennessee lawmakers today withdrew two abortion measures that would have required a woman to receive an ultrasound before an abortion (HB 1459) and would have banned the sale of aborted fetal tissue (HB 1709). WPLN reports the measures were withdrawn without explanation.

Memphis lawyer George Ernest Skouteris Jr. was disbarred from the practice of law today by the Tennessee Supreme Court. In 2010, Skouteris agreed to a settlement in an automobile accident without the authority of his clients. He signed their names to the settlement checks without their knowledge or consent and deposited them to his trust account. He later led the clients to believe their lawsuit was still ongoing. Read the BPR release.