The Defendant, Glen Edward Miller, pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and two counts of kidnapping, and the trial court sentenced him to a twelve-year effective sentence, to be served on probation after one year of confinement. In response to the Defendant’s second proven probation violation, the trial court ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal from this judgment, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence; (2) the evidence is insufficient to prove that he violated his probation; and (3) the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Nicole L. Lindholm, appeals the trial court’s imposition of an effective five-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction for her convictions for aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, which followed the trial court’s revocation of her probationary sentence on judicial diversion. The Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence and erred by denying her request for probation. Based on our review, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

A Hawkins County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher James Funk, Sr., of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and possessing a firearm while under the influence of alcohol. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days after service of forty-eight hours in custody. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying both his motion to suppress and his subsequent motion for an interlocutory appeal. The State asserts that the Defendant waived any issue regarding his motion to suppress by failing to file a motion for a new trial. It also argues that the denial of an interlocutory appeal may not be challenged in a later direct appeal. On our review, we agree with the State and respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Following a bench trial, the Maury County Circuit Court convicted the Defendant of patronizing prostitution from a minor, a Class B felony, in count one and solicitation of a minor to commit patronizing prostitution, a Class C felony, in count two. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eight and three years, respectively, and merged the convictions. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is sufficient to support only a conviction of patronizing prostitution from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor, a Class A misdemeanor, in count one and that the evidence is insufficient to support any conviction in count two. The State concedes that the Defendant committed a Class A misdemeanor in count one and, therefore, that both convictions must be modified to misdemeanors. We agree with the State; modify the judgment in count one to reflect a Class A misdemeanor conviction of patronizing prostitution from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor; modify the judgment in count two to reflect a Class B misdemeanor conviction of solicitation of a law enforcement officer posing as a minor to commit patronizing prostitution; and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in concluding it failed to comply with a scheduling order and in excluding its vocational expert. The employee suffered a compensable injury to his back in 2019 and settled his initial claim for benefits. Thereafter, when his initial compensation period expired, the employee filed a petition for additional disability benefits. After a scheduling hearing, the trial court issued a scheduling order that included one deadline for the disclosure of expert witnesses and a later deadline for the identification of testifying witnesses. There was no deadline listed in the scheduling order for the exchange of expert reports. After the scheduling hearing, the employer’s counsel e-mailed counsel for the employee to schedule a vocational evaluation with the employer’s vocational expert, whom it identified in the e-mail. The employee attended the requested expert vocational evaluation, and the employer sent a copy of the expert’s completed report after the deadline for the disclosure of expert witnesses but before the deadlines for expert depositions and the identification of testifying witnesses. The employee filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the vocational expert, and the court granted the motion, concluding that the employer had not complied with the scheduling order. The employer has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record and arguments of counsel, we reverse the trial court’s order excluding the employer’s vocational expert and remand the case.

For the week of October 23, 2023 - October 27, 2023

Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands (LAS), announced last week that it is partnering with the Lawyers' Association for Women (LAW) for a fundraising campaign aimed at assisting survivors of domestic violence. The fundraising effort, which will last through the end of 2023, is being launched as part of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Funds raised will go toward vital educational materials. “We’re proud to partner with the Lawyers’ Association for Women for this important fundraising campaign,” said DarKenya W. Waller, executive director of LAS. “It requires enormous bravery for domestic violence survivors to extract themselves from the situations they’re in.” Contributions are being accepted through Give Lively. Read the full press release from LAS.

Volunteer attorneys, notaries and witnesses are needed for the TBA Young Lawyers Division Essential Documents for Essential Workers Clinic to be held Nov. 29, 3-7 p.m. CST at the White County Public Library, 11 North Church St., Sparta 38583. The program will offer free wills, powers of attorney and advanced health care directives to essential workers such as teachers, first responders and their spouses. No prior experience is needed. To volunteer or for more info, email Amber Vargas.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled today a family court judge must face a lawsuit for leading a warrantless search of a litigant’s home in a divorce dispute, reports the National Law Journal. The court held that West Virginia judge Louise Goldston is not entitled to judicial immunity from claims she violated Matthew Gibson’s constitutional rights when she directed both parties during a divorce proceeding to meet at Gibson’s house to search for property his ex-wife claimed he still had. The three-judge appellate panel said Goldston lacks immunity because the search in which she participated was a non-judicial act, and she "clearly exceeded the most common understandings of the proper judicial role."