Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found four statutory grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also concluded termination was in the child’s best interest. Neither the guardian ad litem nor Mother received notice of the trial court’s Order. Becoming aware of the trial court’s Order more than thirty days after the decision, Mother filed a motion asking the trial court to set aside and then re-enter its final order, seeking to ensure that she could still appeal. The trial court granted Mother’s motion. Mother appeals, arguing the trial court erred with regard to each ground of termination that it found and that its conclusion as to the best interest of the child was also in error. On appeal, Petitioners, paternal grandparents seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights, argue the trial court erred in setting aside and then re-entering its termination order and, consequently, that this court lacks jurisdiction over Mother’s appeal. The Petitioners also defend the trial court’s termination decision on the merits. We conclude this court has jurisdiction over Mother’s appeal, that the trial court did not err in finding that grounds were established for termination, and that the trial court did not err in finding that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Sessions from the TBA’s 2024 Dispute Resolution Forum are now available on demand as a 1-click CLE package. Programming includes ethics grievance and arbitration demonstrations, a discussion of community mediation centers, changes in the arbitrability of sexual assault and harassment claims, and a course that covers settlement malpractice. Earn three dual and 1.75 general CLE credits with just one click. Learn more and purchase the CLE here.

The TBA’s 2024 Convention gets underway Wednesday with a meeting of the TBA House of Delegates, training for new section chairs and a welcome reception for all attendees. Pre-registration for the event is now closed but those still interested in attending may register on site at TBA Registration, which will be located in Grand Ballroom Salon C on the Mezzanine Level of the Peabody Hotel,  beginning at 1 p.m. CDT Wednesday. Those unable to attend this year’s convention in person are invited to join us for a livestream of the annual Lawyers Luncheon at noon CDT Friday on TBA’s Facebook page. Watch as President Jim Barry closes out his year of leadership, Tennessee lawyers are recognized for their contributions to the profession and TBA President-elect Ed Lanquist Jr. is sworn into office. Questions about this year’s event? Visit the event webpage or email convention@tnbar.org.

In this consolidated appeal, the defendants, Emily Ashton Williams and Joel Scott Sweeney, appeal their Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated child neglect. Defendant Sweeney argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court committed plain error by failing to require the State to make an election of offenses, and that the trial court erred in sentencing him. Defendant Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A spokesperson with Carter Malone Group, a public relations firm that works for the Shelby County Juvenile Court, told the Daily Memphian that court officials expect the juvenile court building to reopen in July. The building closed "indefinitely" in April while asbestos, mold and lead issues were abated. The Daily Memphian reports that officials are waiting on a formal announcement from Shelby County government about the reopening.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Police found incriminating evidence in Dorian McMullen’s car. The district court denied McMullen’s motion to suppress that evidence. Seeing no Fourth Amendment violation, we AFFIRM.

Petitioner, Lindsay Lowe, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated child abuse for killing her newborn twin sons shortly after their birth at her parents’ home and concealing their bodies in a laundry basket. State v. Lowe, 552 S.W.3d 842, 846-48 (Tenn. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1204 (2019). Her convictions and resulting life sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. Id. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought rehearing. Petitioner then sought a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. Id. Petitioner ultimately filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief in which she made innumerable allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel as well as several constitutional violations that she argued necessitated reversal of her convictions. Petitioner also requested due process tolling of the post-conviction statute of limitations based on erroneous legal advice about when the statute of limitations commenced. The post-conviction court determined due process tolling was warranted and permitted Petitioner to have a lengthy hearing on the merits of the post-conviction petition. After the hearing, the post-conviction court granted post-conviction relief on the basis that a juror was presumptively biased against Petitioner, violating her right to a fair trial, and that trial counsel’s failure to remove the juror violated Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court did not address the merits of any of the remaining claims in the petition. In this timely State appeal, we determine first that the postconviction court improperly granted due process tolling of the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Additionally, because the post-conviction court went on to grant post-conviction relief, we review those findings of fact and conclusions of law and determine that the post-conviction court also erred in finding that the juror was presumptively biased and that trial counsel was ineffective. As a result, we reverse and remand the judgment of the post-conviction court. All of Petitioner’s convictions are reinstated and her petition for post-conviction relief is dismissed.

The Defendant, Aaron Michael King, appeals his jury convictions for rape, rape of a child, statutory rape by an authority figure, incest, aggravated sexual battery, especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, tampering with evidence, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping. For these convictions, he received an effective seventy-seven-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his kidnapping convictions because they were merely incidental to the contemporaneous rapes; (2) the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for a mistrial after a State’s witness impermissibly vouched for the victim’s credibility; (3) the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for new trial where defense counsel, who was acting as treasurer for the prosecuting assistant district attorney general’s campaign for a general sessions court judgeship during the Defendant’s trial, had an impermissible conflict of interest; and (4) the cumulative effect of these errors entitle him to a new trial. After our review, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the challenged convictions, that the trial court properly denied a mistrial, and that the Defendant is not entitled to relief pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine. We further conclude that no adverse effect resulted from the improper conflict of interest. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to two of her children. The trial court found that two grounds had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother appeals. We reverse the trial court’s finding that the ground of persistence of conditions has been proven but affirm the trial court’s finding that another ground for termination has been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Thus, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

Petitioner, Brian C. Frelix, appeals from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief related to his convictions for four counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, but less than $10,000. Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief based upon his claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to (1) raise a Double Jeopardy issue at trial or on direct appeal related to two of his aggravated robbery charges; and (2) raise a Brady issue on direct appeal related to the State’s failure to disclose three letters sent to the police by a jailhouse informant. Petitioner also raises a freestanding claim that the State improperly withheld the letters in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.