Defendant, Lerico Sullivan, challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that because the only evidence supporting the revocation was improperly admitted testimonial hearsay, this court should reverse and dismiss the revocation proceeding. Defendant also challenges the trial court’s holding him in contempt twenty times during the hearing and ordering the ten-day sentences imposed for each contempt finding to be served consecutively. The State concedes that the trial court erred by admitting testimonial hearsay but asks this court to remand the case for a new revocation hearing. The State contends that the trial court did not err by holding Defendant in contempt or by aligning the sentences consecutively. Because the trial court erred by admitting testimonial hearsay without making the appropriate findings and because no other evidence supported the allegations that Defendant violated his probation, we reverse the revocation of his probation and dismiss the case. Regarding the twenty findings of contempt and related consecutive sentencing decision, we conclude that the evidence preponderates against three of the findings of contempt and reverse and dismiss those findings. We also conclude that the effective sentence on the contempt convictions should be modified to sixty days to be served in confinement. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified in part and reversed and dismissed in part.

A jury convicted the Defendant, David Keith Gunn, of one count of possessing fifteen grams or more of fentanyl for resale, one count of possessing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia. The Defendant also pleaded guilty to one count of driving on a suspended license with prior convictions. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of incarceration of seventeen years for these offenses. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence upon which his trial convictions are based. We find no error and affirm the judgments of conviction.

This action arises from the parties’ repeated petitions to modify a permanent parenting plan set forth by the trial court in 2016 regarding co-parenting of the parties’ two minor children. Shortly after the children were born, the mother moved to Virginia with the children, and the father remained in Tennessee. The parenting plan designated the mother as primary residential parent and set forth a schedule wherein the children would reside with the mother and attend school in Virginia during the school year, and reside primarily with the father in Tennessee during the summers. The parenting plan further provided that each parent would enjoy co-parenting time with the children while the children were living with the other parent. Since moving to Virginia in 2016, the mother had filed several motions to change venue to the trial court in Virginia. The mother argued that a change of venue was proper, pursuant to Tennessee’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), because the trial court in Tennessee had lost continuing, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction and because Tennessee was an inconvenient forum. At the beginning of trial, after considering Mother’s renewed motion to change venue, the trial court determined that it retained subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and that Tennessee was not an inconvenient forum. The trial court then conducted a three-day hearing on the substantive arguments presented in the parties’ competing motions to modify and motions for contempt. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that a material change in circumstance had occurred warranting modification of the parenting plan. Additionally, the trial court found the mother guilty of two counts of civil contempt for violating the parenting plan by failing to allow the father his weekend co-parenting time in October 2023 and by failing to timely return the children to the father for the beginning of his summer co-parenting time in 2024. The trial court fined the mother $100.00 for the civil contempt charges. The trial court also ordered the mother to pay the father’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,000.00 for her actions in prolonging the lawsuit and other violations of court orders. Upon careful review, we vacate the two civil contempt charges and resultant fine of $100.00. In all other respects, we affirm.

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, has asked Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to request additional assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) specifically for Shelby County, the Commercial Appeal reports. Cohen said the funding is “essential” to help the county recover from a winter storm that swept through the region last month and caused “extensive damages.” In January, President Donald Trump approved an emergency declaration for Tennessee and FEMA released $3.75 million to reimburse the state. Earlier this month, the president also approved an expedited major disaster declaration for 23 counties in the state. Cohen is seeking an additional request for public assistance funding for Shelby County, citing updated damage estimates of nearly $7 million.

Former Chattanooga accountant Jonathan D. Frost has pleaded guilty to three federal felonies, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to defraud the United States. According to a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice, the scheme misused investor funds meant for a hydrogen gas facility but instead were converted to the personal use of Frost and his co-conspirators. Frost waived his right to a grand jury indictment before U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger and agreed to a monetary judgment against him of at least $70 million. His sentence will be determined later by Chief U.S. District Judge Travis R. McDonough at a hearing set for Aug. 7. Frost faces up to a combined 45 years in federal prison. Victims of Frost's hydrogen plant scheme are encouraged to email the FBI and access case updates through this website.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia now that a 90-day detention period has expired because the government has no viable plan for deporting him, the Associated Press reports. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland wrote in her order that the government “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success. From this, the Court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Xinis also noted the government has “purposely — and for no reason — ignored the one country [Costa Rico] that has consistently offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee, and to which he agrees to go.” Abrego Garcia’s attorney has argued the government cannot hold him indefinitely with no viable deportation plan.

Shelby County Clerk Wanda Halbert has pulled a qualifying petition to run for a third term even though the county charter limits her to two consecutive terms. The Daily Memphian raises the possibility that Halbert's action might forecast a challenge to those limits, which have been in place since 2010. According to the paper, Halbert also picked up qualifying petitions for the May 5 Democratic primary for county trustee and criminal court clerk. The deadline to file qualifying petitions for the primary is Feb. 19. If Halbert files a petition for county clerk, the Shelby County Election Commission will determine her eligibility and could seek guidance from the Tennessee coordinator of elections if a legal challenge arises.

As part of its ongoing effort to gather feedback from Tennessee attorneys on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Sept. 16 order seeking public comment on seven areas of potential regulatory changes to the legal profession, the TBA’s Legal Access and Regulatory Reform Task Force is hosting a series of virtual town halls. Thursday's event will start at noon CDT and focus on the role of paraprofessionals. There is no cost to attend but registration is required to receive the meeting link. Attorneys also are encouraged to review the TBA’s Legal Access & Regulatory Reform resource page before attending.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Feb. 17 referred the case of Knox County lawyer Dianne Elizabeth Lashmit to the Board of Professional Responsibility for it to “evaluate the facts and circumstances” of the case and proceed “as appropriate.” From September 2013 to January 2024, Lashmit was employed as a Blount County Juvenile Court magistrate. Last fall she pleaded guilty to failure to report child abuse in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-412. She eventually disclosed the information to police. As part of her plea, she received a one-year suspended sentence and judicial diversion.

U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell decided not to grant a preliminary injunction to a lawsuit challenging a Tennessee law that allows police to arrest people who approach within 25 feet after a direct order to stop. According to the Nashville Banner newsletter, Campbell ruled that the plaintiffs — a coalition of media organizations that includes the Banner — did not demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm. Campbell said the plaintiffs could not point to a specific case of the law hindering Tennessee media in covering the news since it went into effect in July 2025. The state said the law applies in three scenarios: a traffic stop, an active investigation and an “ongoing and immediate” public safety concern. The plaintiffs have expressed concern about the “unbridled discretion” the statute could offer police. Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) has instructed officers not to enforce the law while the litigation is pending. The lawsuit will continue, and Campbell said he would welcome a further motion or conversations between the parties if MNPD’s policy changes.