Defendant, Jamieum Alvin Reid, was indicted by a Madison County Grand Jury for possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, and possession of methamphetamine. Defendant pled guilty as charged and agreed to an effective eight-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying alternative sentencing because he was already approved by a community based program, and the State failed to present evidence that an alternative sentence was inappropriate. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Antonio D. Gause, was convicted by a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury of two counts of first degree felony murder under alternate theories; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and accessory after the fact, a Class E felony. After merging the felony murder convictions, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the first degree felony murder conviction, twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and two years for the accessory after the fact conviction, for an effective sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Tipton County Grand Jury indicted Defendant for especially aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault by strangulation. Prior to trial, counts one and two of the indictment were amended to aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and aggravated criminal trespass. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective eight-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault by strangulation. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Cecil Cemontaie Burnice, Defendant, claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation based on new criminal charges of aggravated robbery and criminal trespass because Defendant was subsequently found not guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and the State dismissed the criminal trespass count We determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Defendant’s probation based on the evidence presented at the revocation hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a divorce after a short marriage. The husband appeals from the ruling of the trial court as it relates to the division of marital assets, the number of days he was awarded in the parenting plan, and the alimony award to the wife. Upon our review, we find the order appealed from is nonfinal and must be dismissed.

The Volunteer Lawyers & Professionals for the Arts (VLPA) has an upcoming Pro Bono Legal Clinic on May 1 from 6-8pm CDT at the Country Music Association, 35 Music Square East #201, Nashville 37203. Volunteering would involve meeting with income-qualified artists (in 30-minute appointment slots) to answer their legal questions. Legal clinic clients most frequently need assistance with contract review, business entity formation, copyrights and trademarks. Attorneys will not be asked to maintain ongoing attorney-client relationships with any of the clients. To volunteer, email vlpa@abcnashville.org or fill out this volunteer intake form.

This matter concerns prior restraint on speech. Patrick M. Malone (“Father”) is a party to an action in the Chancery Court for Williamson County (“the Trial Court”) against maternal grandparents James William Rose and Jennie Adams Rose (“Respondents”) concerning Father’s minor child, Rosie (“the Child”). Father’s father, Michael P. Malone (“Petitioner”), testified voluntarily at a hearing on Father’s motion to set bail pending appeal of Father’s convictions for criminal contempt. In two written orders, the Trial Court ordered Petitioner not to discuss the legal proceedings of Father’s case with the Child. Petitioner, a non-party, filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court seeking reversal of the Trial Court’s orders against him as he contends they were improper. We granted the petition. The Trial Court’s restrictions lack an adequate evidentiary basis. In addition, the Trial Court erred in abridging Petitioner’s constitutional right to free speech when Petitioner is a non-party who lacked the benefit of notice or a hearing. We reverse the provisions of the Trial Court’s orders dated August 15, 2023 and August 17, 2023 restraining Petitioner from discussing the legal proceedings of Father’s case with the Child.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 3, 2023. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until December 8, 2023, more than thirty days after the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract action wherein the appellee was directed to deposit funds owed to the appellant with the Clerk and Master. The appellee claimed an interest in some of the deposited funds pursuant to a separate contract. The trial court granted a default judgment in favor of the appellee for the requested amount. Because the appellant failed to comply with the briefing requirements set out in Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, we dismiss the appeal.

A mother and a father appeal the termination of their parental rights. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of four statutory grounds for termination of the mother's parental rights and five statutory grounds for termination of the father's parental rights. The court also determined termination was in the child's best interest. After a thorough review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.