The Defendant, Chandler Gant, pled guilty in the Robertson County Circuit Court to assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the trial court to 11 months, 29 days in the county jail, with 30 days to serve on consecutive weekends and the remainder of the time on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a sentence of partial confinement. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jennifer Michelle Childs, was indicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and filed motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment. The trial court held a hearing, ruled that the Defendant’s warrantless arrest was illegal, and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals the dismissal, arguing that the remedy for an illegal arrest is suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the State. Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment is reversed, the indictment is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Corey Brown, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of especially aggravated robbery for which he received a sentence of twenty-one years in prison. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial judge failed to execute its responsibility as thirteenth juror. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

The petitioner, Morrieo Allen, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The parents of a child brought suit to personally recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in relation to sexual abuse of their child that had been perpetrated by the defendant church’s former paid volunteer coordinator. The church filed a motion to dismiss the parents’ claims and argued that the parents’ attempt to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress was not legally cognizable because the parents did not perceive any injury-producing event. The trial court countenanced this position and entered an order dismissing the parents’ claims. The parents then filed a motion seeking relief from the dismissal order and, alternatively, to amend their complaint. The trial court ultimately denied the parents’ motion, following which the present appeal ensued. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this ongoing divorce litigation, the father filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motions to recuse the trial judge. Having reviewed father’s petition under the required de novo standard, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

This post-divorce action concerns the trial court’s order finding the husband in civil contempt based on his failure to pay alimony to the wife and to maintain security for his alimony obligation as ordered. The trial court entered an order on April 29, 2022, finding the husband in contempt and assigning a punishment. Husband did not file a notice of appeal, or a specified motion tolling the time for filing a notice of appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.01, within thirty days of entry of the contempt order. As such, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the husband’s issues concerning interpretation or alteration of the April 29, 2022 contempt order as sought in his untimely motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 52.02 and 59.04. To the extent that the trial court denied relief to the husband pursuant to his motion based on Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm that ruling. We award to the wife her reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, and we remand this issue to the trial court for determination of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees incurred by the wife in defending against the husband’s appeal.

In this matter, the petitioner seeks a reversal of the trial court’s decision not to recuse itself. Due to the failure of the petitioner to meet the mandatory requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, § 2.03, this appeal is dismissed and the trial court’s decision is affirmed.

A mother sought to terminate the parental rights of her child’s father pursuant to the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support. At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the trial court concluded that the mother failed to prove any termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed her termination petition. Determining that the mother lacked standing to seek termination of the father’s parental rights pursuant to those grounds, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the termination petition.

A new online database of federal judges’ financial disclosure reports has been plagued with delays in the fillings being made public, hampering a tool mandated by a bipartisan bill meant to bring greater transparency to the courts. Around 2,500 federal judges and U.S. Supreme Court justices are required to file annual disclosure reports. Yet as of this week, one year since the database was unveiled, it contained only 1,138 annual reports for 2022 and 1,943 for 2021, according to Fix the Court. Reuters has more on the story.