The petitioner, Kenneth Watts, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2009 Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of vandalism and theft of property, for which he received a sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends only that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Bobby Waddle, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2012 Washington County Criminal Court guilty- pleaded convictions of aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Aggrieved of his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated assault, possession with intent to sell more than one-half ounce of marijuana in a drug free school zone, evading arrest, resisting arrest, driving with a suspended license, failing to comply with the financial responsibility law, and violating the safety belt requirement and vehicle registration requirements, the defendant, Devin Lamar Jamison, appeals.

The Petitioner, John A. Jones, III, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court?s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief for the petition?s being filed outside the one-year statute of limitations. Based upon the record and the parties? briefs, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

An Anderson County jury found the Petitioner, Ralph Byrd Cooper, Jr., guilty of aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a violent offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Petitioner?s conviction was affirmed by this Court and our Supreme Court affirmed his convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. State v. Ralph Byrd Cooper, Jr., 321 S.W.3d 501, 507-08 (Tenn. 2010). On remand, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a career offender to sixty years of incarceration, and this Court affirmed his sentence on appeal. State v.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal results from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because Appellants’ did not provide the mandatory affidavit in support of their motion for recusal as required by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this health care liability action, this Court granted the defendants? application pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 10 to address two issues. We have determined that: (1) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) does not preempt Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(f); and (2) the trial court erred in denying the defendants? petition for a qualified protective order pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann.

Helkie Nathan Carter (“the Defendant”) was indicted for the following counts: (1) driving under the influence (“DUI”)—third offense; (2) driving with a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of .08 or more (“DUI per se”)—third offense; (3) violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender statute; and (4) driving on a revoked license. The Defendant?s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a mandatory blood draw was granted by the trial court.

The Petitioner, Connie Arnold, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged the legality of his judgments of conviction for rape of a child and aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The Petitioner asserts that his indictment and judgments of conviction are illegal and void on their face because the offense date listed in the documents is incorrect. Further, the Petitioner asserts that his judgment for rape of a child contains an illegal sentence, entitling him to habeas corpus relief.

This appeal arises from post-divorce efforts to modify a permanent parenting plan. Mother filed a petition in which she requested a modification to the permanent parenting plan. Father filed a counter-petition in which he requested to be named the primary residential parent of their children. The trial court found that Father failed to prove a material change in circumstance as necessary to change the primary residential parent designation and that Mother failed to prove a material change in circumstance as necessary to modify the permanent parenting plan.