The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Latarius Curry, Defendant, on one count each of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. A jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective 22-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Having reviewed the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Robert Andrew Dunnivant, pled guilty to aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, and two counts of domestic assault. As part of the plea, the parties agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to an effective term of ten years but that the trial court would determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied an alternative sentence and imposed a sentence of full confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted an alternative sentence. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Bedford County jury convicted the Defendant, Forrest Ray Hester, of delivery of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine based upon a theory of criminal responsibility, possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, and possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the possession convictions and imposed an effective sentence of sixteen years to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his co-defendant’s guilty plea to sale/delivery of methamphetamine based on a theory of criminal responsibility precludes the Defendant’s conviction for the same offense based on a theory of criminal responsibility. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Danny Royce Murphy, Defendant, was convicted of driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license and driving without evidence of financial responsibility after representing himself at trial. The trial court ordered a six-month sentence, with 30 days to serve and the remainder on Community Corrections. Defendant filed several post-trial motions, including a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motions and this appeal ensued. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Kirsten Williams, Petitioner, was convicted of aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary in a joint trial with a co-defendant. State v. Williams, No. W2021- 01071-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 17728221, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 16, 2022), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years in incarceration at 100 percent service rate. Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post- conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on June 6, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until July 16, 2024, 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.

Colorado lawyer Melanie Beth Shada has received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court. Shada was hired by a client to prepare estate planning documents. The court found that she sent draft documents to the client, but failed to finalize the documents or respond to multiple requests for information. She also failed to respond in a timely manner to the disciplinary complaint. Her actions were determined to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 8.1.

A putative father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a child. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of several statutory grounds for termination. It also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest. Following thorough review, we conclude that not all grounds for termination were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Still, we affirm the termination of parental rights.

The trial court granted Appellees’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03 motion to dismiss Appellant’s lawsuit for unjust enrichment because Appellant did not exhaust its remedies in contract. We affirm.

Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and breach of contract to enforce a purchase and sale agreement, which was allegedly entered by and between Appellants and Appellees. In their answer, Appellees asserted, as an affirmative defense, that Appellants had no standing to enforce the contract because they were not parties to it. On Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Appellants were not parties to the contract and had no standing to bring an action to enforce it. Discerning no error, we affirm.