This is the second appeal from a finding of criminal contempt. Appellant and his wife originally filed a petition to have the Appellees? daughter adjudicated dependent and neglected. The trial court entered an order, in which the parties could not contact each other or each other?s families. Appellant made contact with Appellees? daughters on multiple occasions via text message and once in person.

The petitioner, Junior P. Samuel, appeals pro se from the summary dismissal of his 2015 petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2009 convictions of rape and sexual battery by an authority figure. Because the petition was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations, because this is the petitioner’s second successive petition for post-conviction relief, and because the petitioner failed to prove a statutory exception to the timely filing or a due process tolling of the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The pro se Petitioner, Christopher Michael Hooten, appeals as of right from the Maury County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his petition presented a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and, therefore, that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition. The State concedes that the Petitioner presented a colorable claim for relief. Following our review, we agree with the parties and remand for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

Mark Winslow brought suit against Charles Fleischmann and his campaign advertising consultant, John Saltsman, to recover for allegedly false and defamatory statements made in the course of Mr. Fleishman’s campaign for election to the United States Congress, and related contractual claims. Mr. Fleishman and Mr. Saltsman moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the statements were not false or capable of defamatory meaning or published with actual malice, and that they took no action to induce a breach of contract or otherwise interfere with the relationship between Mr.

This appeal arises from a decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (the “Board”) to deny an inmate parole after his initial parole review hearing. In 2009, the inmate pled guilty to two counts of attempted rape of a child and two counts of incest and was sentenced to 20 years in prison with parole eligibility after serving 30% of his sentence. Apparently because of his good behavior, the Board considered the inmate for release on parole after he had served only 20% of his sentence.

The defendant, Michael Smith, was convicted of aggravated burglary and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years, the sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence previously imposed in another matter.

The defendant, Edward Sample, was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his other crimes, that the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial, and that he was improperly fingerprinted during trial without counsel present.

The petitioner, Mathew Dixon, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. He subsequently filed both a direct appeal and a petition for post-conviction relief in his case. He has now filed the instant petition to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging a laterarising claim. Specifically, he contends that he subsequently learned that a witness at trial against him had an agreement with the prosecution.

The Defendant, Kendra Mahan, appeals as of right from the White County Criminal Court’s revocation of her six-year community corrections sentence and order of total incarceration relative to her guilty-pleaded convictions for attempted introduction of contraband into a penal institution, aggravated burglary, and theft of property valued over $500.00 but less than $1,000.00. The Defendant contends that she was not afforded due process because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact.