The Defendant, Deshaun Ward, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revocation of the probation that he had received for his negotiated plea to reckless vehicular homicide and two counts of vehicular assault. On appeal the Defendant contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Gov. Bill Lee is calling his special-called legislative session on public safety a success that is giving him hope for the future of Tennessee, WSMV reports. He also said that while he does not have a plan for legislation he wants lawmakers to pass when they reconvene in January, he wants to keep talking about ways to keep Tennesseans safe. “This has been an important week for Tennessee, a difficult week, but a week that’s hopeful,” he said. In a video statement released last night, Lee thanked Tennesseans, especially family members from the Covenant School, for engaging in efforts to strengthen safety across the state. He also highlighted the four bills that passed the General Assembly during the special session, saying, “Significant funding was focused on issues that matter to public safety. We improved the background check system, attacked human trafficking, made more access for safe storage. We funded mental health resources across the state. We made progress.”

In this case of first impression, the State appeals the trial court’s sentencing hearing order that the Defendant’s two life sentences be served concurrently after he was determined to be ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(g) (Supp. 2021) (subsequently amended). The State argues that the consecutive alignment of the Defendant’s original sentences remained final and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider manner of service. The Defendant responds that the trial court had jurisdiction to sentence him, including determining the manner of service of his sentences, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing concurrent life sentences. After considering the arguments of the parties, the rules of statutory construction, and other applicable legal authority, we conclude that the trial court properly acted within its discretion in conducting a hearing to determine the manner of service of the Defendant’s life sentences. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Defendant, Sarah N. Eakes, pleaded guilty to one count of child neglect, and the trial court sentenced her to serve eighteen months in confinement and denied her request for both an alternative sentence and judicial diversion. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her requests for an alternative sentence and judicial diversion, and she asks this court to enter an order granting both. The State concedes that the trial court failed to consider or weigh the relevant factors in its denial, but it asks this court to remand the case for a new sentencing hearing. After review, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and grant judicial diversion. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the imposition of the conditions, and term of judicial diversion, with the term not to exceed eighteen months.

Petitioner, Mark Anthony Clemmons, appeals as of right from the Wilson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his guiltypleaded convictions for possession with intent to sell not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana; possession with intent to sell a Schedule III controlled substance (dihydrocodeinone); and two counts of sale of not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana, for which the trial court imposed an effective twentyseven- year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to explain the consequences of entering an open plea. Following our review, we affirm.

Defendant, Hilton Lee Chatman, was charged in an eleven-count indictment on drugrelated offenses. A jury convicted him of possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in Count 1; possession with intent to sell heroin in Count 3; possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony drug offense in Count 10; and possession of drug paraphernalia in Count 11. Defendant was found not guilty of the remaining seven counts of the indictment. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to a total effective sentence of twenty-four years and six months. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, his sentence is excessive, his motion for new trial was erroneously denied, and the trial court failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure when it rejected his guilty plea. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable authority, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves judicial review of the denial of approval to expand a private construction and demolition waste landfill. The board overseeing the metropolitan government’s solid waste management plan denied the application for expansion, finding that expansion of the landfill was inconsistent with the waste management plan. The operator of the landfill filed a petition for review in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, arguing that the board failed to act within ninety days of receiving the application, followed an uncertified plan, and lacked substantial and material evidence to support the denial. The chancery court affirmed the board’s denial, and the operator has appealed. We have determined that the operator waived its arguments regarding the plan’s certification status by failing to raise those arguments before the board. We affirm the trial court’s decision in all other respects.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

A plaintiff obtained a default judgment against a corporation. Ten months later, the plaintiff moved to pierce the corporate veil and enforce the judgment against an alleged alter ego of the corporation. The trial court denied the motion. Because the judgment was final and the alleged alter ego was never made a party to the action, we affirm.

A tenured teacher appealed his dismissal for insubordination, neglect of duty, and unprofessional conduct. Among other things, he argued that the decision of the Board of Education lacked evidentiary support. After a de novo review, the trial court affirmed the Board’s decision. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings. And the record supports the teacher’s dismissal for insubordination, neglect of duty, and unprofessional conduct. So we affirm.