Rep. Antonio Parkinson, D-Memphis, and Sen. Paul Bailey, R-Sparta, are co-sponsoring a bill that would allow a judge to restore someone’s right to vote separate from other rights, including those regarding gun possession, jury service, holding public office and certain fiduciary powers. The Associated Press reports that SB2913/HB2380 seeks to undo restrictions established in July 2023, when election officials interpreted a state Supreme Court ruling as requiring people convicted of felonies to get their full citizenship rights restored by a judge, or show they were pardoned, before they can apply for reinstated voting rights. In January, the elections office confirmed that voting rights restoration also requires getting back gun rights. A group of Democratic lawmakers previously asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate that policy.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. After being indicted for violating one or more criminal laws, a defendant may plead guilty to some of the charges for all manner of reasons, including a commitment by the government to drop other charges or to recommend a shorter sentence. Criminal Rule 11 establishes a highly reticulated process to ensure that each defendant enters any such agreement knowingly and voluntarily. The courts do not lightly undo such bargains. Absent a mistake in the Rule 11 process or a preserved constitutional violation with respect to the plea-bargaining process, a post-conviction claimant has few options for relief other than executive-branch clemency. One narrow exception is that he may raise a claim of “actual innocence” to an offense covered by the guilty plea, say because subsequent caselaw establishes that the charge no longer amounts to a criminal offense. To obtain relief under this exception, however, the claimant must demonstrate his “actual innocence” of any “more serious” charges that the government dismissed as part of the plea deal. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 624 (1998).

Today’s consolidated cases raise a variation on this issue. When plea bargainers wish to raise procedurally defaulted postconviction challenges to their offenses of conviction, but cannot show their actual innocence of “equally serious” dismissed counts, may we excuse the default? The answer is no.

The Senate on Monday unanimously passed legislation requiring minors to have parental consent to create social media accounts. The Associated Press reports that lawmakers are hoping to require social media companies to provide parents with options to view privacy settings, set daily time restrictions and implement mandatory breaks. If enacted, the state attorney general would be permitted to investigate and sue social media platforms for violations.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Reverend Kenneth Simon, Reverend Lewis W. Macklin, II, and Helen Youngblood (collectively, the “Simon Parties”) sued the Ohio Redistricting Commission and several of its members, including Governor Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives Robert Cupp, President of the Ohio Senate Matthew Huffman, and Auditor Keith Faber (collectively, the “Ohio Redistricting Commission”). The Simon Parties allege that Ohio’s congressional districts violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment. The Simon Parties moved to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, and the Ohio Redistricting Commission opposed that motion and moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court denied the motion to convene a three-judge court, granted the motions to dismiss, and denied all other pending motions. For the reasons explained below, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying the motion for a three-judge court, VACATE the district court’s order granting the motions to dismiss and denying the motion for temporary restraining order and motion for class certification, and REMAND the case to the district court with directions for it immediately to initiate the procedures to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284.

The Defendant, Anthony Lynn Taylor, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his effective four-year sentence in confinement. On appeal the Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he absconded from probation and that the trial court failed to place sufficient findings on the record to justify placing his sentence into effect. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County Jury convicted DaShawn Patrick Slone and Demetrius Trevon Higgins, Defendants, of first degree premeditated murder and abuse of a corpse. The trial court imposed effective sentences of life plus six years for Defendant Slone and life plus four years for Defendant Higgins. On appeal, Defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for access to the sealed Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) juvenile records relating to the victim’s mother’s records which were sealed to public inspection but provided to the parties prior to the defendant’s trial. Upon our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude the defendant does not have an appeal as of right from the denial of his motion. Additionally, the defendant has failed to establish review as a petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate. Therefore, the instant appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, Marcus Terrell Bradford, was convicted by a Bradley County Criminal Court Jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor; and disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive terms of 11 months, 29 days for the assault conviction and 30 days for the disorderly conduct conviction, to be served at 75% in the county jail. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentences for the offenses, by ordering that the sentences run consecutively, and by not allowing any alternative sentencing options. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Antonio Benson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claim alleging that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to meaningfully present the Petitioner’s self-defense claim. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This case involves a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process and for expiration of the statute of limitations. The plaintiff filed this health care liability suit against a defendant physician. A process server went to the defendant’s office to serve him, and after the process server was unable to locate the defendant, he served the summons and complaint on an employee of the hospital where the defendant’s office was located. The defendant answered the complaint and raised the defense that there was insufficient service of process. More than a year after the complaint was filed, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant and that the statute of limitations had run on the health care liability action. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.