The Defendant, Nathaniel Scott Robinson, pled guilty to the offense of statutory rape, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of six years. The court suspended the sentence and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for resale. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve the six-year sentence in custody. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have considered alternatives to fully revoking his suspended sentence. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, Joshua James Smith, of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges his conviction and sentence, but the State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was untimely. Upon our review, we agree that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the “interest of justice” does not require us to waive the timely filing requirement. We respectfully dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Thomas Dequan Solomon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by basing its decision merely on proof of alleged criminal conduct prior to the filing of formal charges and without considering his history of supervision while on probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A pro se litigant sought to appeal the trial court's denial of a recusal motion. She did not follow the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2.03. Therefore, we dismiss the case.

This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-101 to -110, challenging the denial of the petition to dismiss all three claims asserted by the plaintiff. After the defendant filed his TPPA petition, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed two of his three claims, leaving only his claim for malicious prosecution. While the TPPA petitioner sought to adjudicate all three claims under the TPPA, the trial court ruled that the only remaining issue was whether the plaintiff “has properly plead a claim for malicious prosecution and whether this action should be dismissed pursuant to TPPA.” Following a hearing limited to the malicious prosecution claim, the trial court denied the petition to dismiss without setting forth the reasons for its decision. On appeal, the TPPA petitioner contends he was wrongfully deprived of a decision on his petition concerning the two claims the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed. He also contends the trial court erred in denying his TPPA petition to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim. Relying on the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling in Flade v. City of Shelbyville, ––– S.W.3d ––––, No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV, 2024 WL 4448736, at *5 (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2024), we affirm the trial court’s determination that the TPPA petitioner was not entitled to a decision on the two voluntarily dismissed claims. As for the trial court’s denial of the petition to dismiss the remaining claim, malicious prosecution, we have determined that the TPPA petitioner established that the TPPA applies to the claim presented, which shifted to the plaintiff the burden to establish “a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-105. We have also determined that the plaintiff failed to establish an essential element of his malicious prosecution claim, that the proceeding brought against him by the defendant “terminated in the plaintiff’s favor.” See Mynatt v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, Chapter 39, 669 S.W.3d 741, 746 (Tenn. 2023). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision to not adjudicate the first two claims after they were voluntarily dismissed but reverse the trial court’s decision denying the TPPA petition to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim and remand with instructions to dismiss that claim. Further, the TPPA states that, “[i]f the court dismisses a legal action pursuant to a petition filed under this chapter, the court shall award to the petitioning party . . . [c]ourt costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, discretionary costs, and other expenses incurred in filing and prevailing upon the petition.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-107(a), (a)(1). Accordingly, we remand with instructions for the trial court to make the appropriate award as it pertains to the costs and fees incurred in the trial court and on appeal that pertain to the TPPA petitioner’s efforts to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim.

After suffering an injury, patient alleged that in-patient facility was negligent in failing to inform medical transportation company of his physical limitations prior to his discharge from the facility. In response to the facility’s summary judgment motion, patient relied on the testimony of an “expert in passenger ground transportation.” The trial court found that issues of fact remained as to patient’s ambulation needs, but granted summary judgment as to standard of care and breach because patient’s expert was not competent to testify under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, and the common knowledge exception did not apply. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from South Carolina's Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department, which sought to shield information from Google in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit. According to Reuters, the department argued it was immune from Google's subpoenas because it was not a named plaintiff in the antitrust lawsuit and thus should not be considered an “arm of the state.” The high court's order let stand a lower court ruling requiring the department to provide advertising-related records. In the underlying lawsuit, South Carolina and 16 other states sued Google for allegedly overcharging for its advertising technology. Google has sought information from the states to fight those allegations. It said dozens of other state agencies complied with its demands for information.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee today announced the launch of "Operation Bond Watch" to prosecute individuals previously charged with murder and attempted murder who unlawfully possess firearms while on bond. The initiative aims to deter violent crime and protect the community. The program will focus on individuals released on bond for serious violent crimes and seek federal charges if they are found to have illegally possessed firearms. According to a press release, the office says the program will help prevent gun violence and hold violent criminals accountable. In April, a Nashville man out on bond for murder was arrested for another murder, highlighting the need for the initiative, the office says. The program is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods, a broader effort to reduce violent crime and gun violence in communities.

Nashville and Davidson County Metro Council member Delishia Porterfield, who chairs the council's Budget Committee, plans to prioritize investments in youth programs to address recent gun violence in Nashville, including funding a new Office of Youth Safety, Axios Nashville reports. The news outlet says that two recent shootings have underscored the urgency of this issue. Last week, a 14-year-old was fatally shot during an attempted robbery in East Nashville. Earlier this month, mass shooting killed one person and injured nine others, including children. Porterfield's alternative budget earmarked $750,000 for the Office of Youth Safety and $250,000 for increased community center programming. She believes that empowering youth with conflict resolution skills and restorative justice practices can help break the cycle of violence, “The recent tragedy has highlighted the urgent need for effective solutions that not only address conflicts but also promote healing and understanding," Porterfield said in a statement.

Two representatives from the Davidson County Election Commission will facilitate early voting for incarcerated individuals in five jail facilities run by the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 29, a week ahead of the general election on Nov. 5. With approximately 70 people expected to participate, the effort marks a significant increase in engagement compared to past elections, the Nashville Banner reports. People in Nashville's jails are legally allowed to vote unless they have a felony conviction, though logistical challenges have historically hindered participation. Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall collaborated with community advocates to identify those eligible to vote, which resulted in 172 absentee ballot requests.