Planning to join colleagues for the TBA Annual Convention in Knoxville? Be sure to book your hotel room by this Friday when the room block is set to close. Still on the fence? You do not want to miss this year’s gathering of the Tennessee legal community, which will bring together members of the TBA, Tennessee Alliance of Black Lawyers and Tennessee Lawyers Association for Women as well as state and local judges. Centered around the theme of "Where Law & Sports Come Together," this year's event will feature dynamic programming, esteemed speakers and meaningful opportunities to connect. Learn more or register here.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellant, Luis Santiago, entered a guilty plea to attempted aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and aggravated stalking and received a total effective sentence of seven years and two months with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Appellant’s request for probation and ordered the seven-year-two-month sentence to be served in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of separate judgment forms reflecting dismissal of counts two, four, and five.

The Defendant, Demario Antijuan Jones, pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of an automobile and three counts of driving while license was cancelled, suspended, or revoked, and received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentences and by denying him an alternative sentence. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Robert Vernon Gouge, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, one count of attempted rape of a child, and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ninety-nine years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of aggravated sexual battery in count four and his conviction of rape of a child in count five. He also argues that his effective sentence of ninety-nine years is excessive. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant limited liability company terminated the plaintiff’s employment as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer and revoked his 120 voting and common membership units in the company. The plaintiff brought a claim against individuals belonging to the company’s board of managers, alleging that the defendant board members had breached their fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing by revoking his 120 membership units. The plaintiff sought no less than $120,000.00 in compensatory damages, the value of the 120 membership units as of May 5, 2021, and $480,000.00 in punitive damages. On July 13, 2022, the board of managers adopted a corporate resolution ratifying the plaintiff’s ownership of 120 membership units in an effort to resolve the plaintiff’s claim against the individual board members. Consequently, the defendant board members filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, contending that the plaintiff’s claim against them was rendered moot by the corporate resolution. The trial court granted the defendant board members’ motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against them based on the doctrine of mootness. On appeal, the plaintiff posits that the board members failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that they had rendered his claim moot. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant board members failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the corporate resolution fully redressed the plaintiff’s claim for relief against them. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate a father’s parental rights as to two children, based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, failure to remedy persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child. The trial court granted the petition, finding that the Department proved all alleged grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that terminating the father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. We affirm.

This case arose from a legal malpractice action filed against a lawyer who had represented the plaintiff in an employment discrimination and wrongful termination action. The plaintiff provided no expert testimony to support his claims against the lawyer. Determining that the plaintiff had not presented proof to support his claim and that the defendant had presented evidence to negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves a complaint before the Tennessee Claims Commission. After a year of no action on the part of the claimant, the State moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. The Claims Commission granted the motion, and the claimant now appeals. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the dismissal of the claimant’s case.

Former Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam will serve as national co-chair of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott’s campaign for president, Politico reported today. Haslam, who served as governor from 2011 to 2019, explained his decision saying, “The more I talked to Tim, the more I became convinced that he’s got a message that the country really needs to hear right now.” The news source said Scott is readying an official campaign launch for next week.

A mother and father filed a personal injury action in 2022 on behalf of their adult daughter, who was allegedly injured in a car accident in 2007 when she was four years old. The daughter was not represented by counsel, and her parents purported to represent her. The trial court dismissed the daughter’s claims due to the running of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the daughter argues (through her mother/conservator) that the dismissal was in error because she lacks mental capacity. Because the daughter did not file suit pro se and was not represented by counsel, we conclude that the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.