The Defendant, Charles Jonathan Murphy, was convicted by a Henderson County Circuit Court jury of two counts of rape, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to ten years for each conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty years at 100 % in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing him by misapplying an enhancement factor and ordering consecutive sentences. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Tyler Hemmingway, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to eight years at 100 percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce a photograph of the Defendant’s bedroom that showed a pornographic poster on the wall. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, David Eugene Dunlap, Alias, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone, possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence, possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver, and that the trial court erred by declining to sentence him under the amended Drug-Free Zone statute. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Robert Lee Adams, Jr., was convicted in the Tipton County Circuit Court of attempted second degree murder and received a sentence of thirty years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a claim of negligence. Rex Sullivan, individually and in his capacity as the Administrator Ad Litem for his deceased wife (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint in the Rhea County Circuit Court (“the Trial Court”), seeking damages from James Carden and Carden Trucking Company (“Defendants”) for injuries Plaintiff suffered in a November 2018 car accident. Plaintiff alleged that his accident was caused by Defendants’ failure to remove excessive mud they had deposited onto the rural road he drove on. The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, which Plaintiff has not appealed. Otherwise, given the existence of genuine issues of material fact such as how much mud was deposited onto the road and the foreseeability of the risk of injury, we reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

This is an appeal of a modification to a permanent parenting plan. Dawn Rushing Strickland (“Mother”) filed a motion to modify the permanent parenting plan governing the custody and visitation of two children from her prior marriage to Stephen Rushing (“Father”). The Chancery Court for Hamblen County (“Trial Court”) granted the motion and modified the permanent parenting plan to designate Mother the primary residential parent and grant her 265 co-parenting days and Father 100 co-parenting days. Father has appealed. Upon our review of the final order, we conclude that the Trial Court erroneously considered Mother’s gender in determining that a material change in circumstance had occurred affecting the children’s best interest and that its finding that the best interest factors did not favor one parent over the other demonstrates that Mother failed to carry her burden of proof. We accordingly reverse the Trial Court’s modification of the permanent parenting plan. Mother’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal is denied.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on July 6, 2023. The Notice of Appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until August 11, 2023, more than thirty days from 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 concerns the ownership of property used by the defendant but owned by her father and stepmother. The plaintiff stepmother secured a writ of possession from the general sessions court once her husband passed away. The defendant appealed to the circuit court, which ruled that the property at issue belonged to the plaintiff. We affirm.

In this matter concerning the interpretation of a will, John Moon and Shannon Moon (“John” and “Shannon”) (“Claimants,” collectively) filed a claim in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) against the estate of their late sister, Mary Hutcheson Moon Ballard (“Mary”). Arthur Ballard (“Arthur”), Mary’s husband, filed an exception to the claim. Mary’s grandmother, Elise Chapin Moon (“Elise”), had established a trust for her grandchildren, including Mary. It is Claimants’ position that a bloodline provision in Elise’s will (“the Moon Will”) excludes spouses of grandchildren from receiving trust proceeds. The Trial Court, having put certain questions to a jury, ruled in favor of Arthur. Claimants appeal. We hold that once Mary received the funds from the trust, which dissolved in 2016, the funds were hers outright and no longer subject to the will’s “bloodline” restriction. We hold further that the Trial Court erred by putting questions to a jury when the case was resolvable as a matter of law. However, the error was harmless. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. Upon our review, we conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination and that termination was in the best interest of the children.