The Tennessee Department of Revenue will host a free webinar on books, records and statute of limitations on Dec. 30 at 9 a.m. CST. During the session, department staff will discuss essential record-keeping practices and statute of limitations guidelines for state tax compliance. The webinar is part of a free series the department offers to the public. Registration is available on the department’s website.

The defendant, Lorenza Zackery, appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

A Giles County jury convicted the defendant, Jake Christopher Reynolds, of criminal trespass, preventing or obstructing service of legal process, and resisting arrest, for which he received an effective sentence of ten days in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions and in incorrectly charging the jury on the statutory defense to criminal trespass. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Rex A. Moore, pleaded guilty to theft of property and two counts of violating the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification and Tracking Act of 2004 (“Sexual Offender Registry”). The trial court imposed an effective four-year sentence and suspended the sentences, placing the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant violated the terms of his probation by misrepresenting his residence in violation of the Sexual Offender Registry requirements and by assaulting a corrections officer while incarcerated. After a hearing, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his suspended sentences and by failing to consider lesser sanctions. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, William Couch, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property. The trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence and placed the Defendant on supervised probation. While on probation, the Defendant absconded from supervision and committed new misdemeanor offenses. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked his suspended sentences and ordered him to serve the balance of those sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to impose a lesser sanction, such as reinstatement to probation or split confinement. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Michael Eugene St. Clair, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court for Williamson County, arguing the habeas court erred in dismissing his petition due to improper venue and failure to include the necessary transcript. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

This appeal concerns jail behavior credits. Dickson County Jail inmate Brandon Shane Wooley (“Plaintiff”) sued Dickson County and several officials (“Defendants”) in the Chancery Court for Dickson County (“the Trial Court”) alleging that he was wrongfully denied credits for good behavior. When Defendants failed to respond within 30 days, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Trial Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. In addition, the Trial Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s complaint because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Trial Court stated, therefore, that it was unnecessary to address Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appeals. We vacate the Trial Court’s holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remand for the Trial Court to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies and what those remedies were.

A trial court declined to grant an ex parte order of protection. Following the subsequent contested hearing over whether to issue an order of protection, the trial court did not determine whether the petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence the underlying offense predicate for issuance of an order of protection pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605(b). Instead, the trial court determined that issuance of an order of protection was unwarranted because the petitioner had failed to prove ongoing existing danger posed by the alleged perpetrator. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court, while noting a seeming tension between this approach and the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605(b), concluded the result followed from this court’s decision in Dulaney v. Chico, No. E2022-00047-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 2253373 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023). Noting that this court’s prior decision is unpublished, the petitioner appeals, asserting that the trial court’s approach is inconsistent with the statute. While our understanding of the statutory scheme diverges from that set forth in Dulaney v. Chico, we affirm the trial court’s decision. We do so because we conclude that the absence of existing ongoing danger is a proper consideration under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605(b) when no ex parte order has been issued and because the trial court properly understood its discretion in this case.

This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish statutory grounds of termination. The court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We now affirm.

Finding good cause, a trial court issued an ex parte order of protection. Following the subsequent contested hearing, the trial court did not determine whether the petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence the underlying offense predicate for issuance of an order of protection pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-605(b). Instead, the trial court determined that extension of the ex parte order of protection was unwarranted because the petitioner had failed to prove ongoing existing danger posed by the alleged perpetrator. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court, while noting a seeming tension between this approach and the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36- 3-605(b), concluded the result followed from this court’s decision in Dulaney v. Chico, No. E2022-00047-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 2253373 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023). Noting that this court’s prior decision is unpublished, the petitioner appeals, asserting that the trial court’s approach is inconsistent with the statute. We agree with the petitioner that the statute mandates extending an existing ex parte order of protection upon finding that a predicate act was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we vacate and remand.