In 2017, the Petitioner, Jacquiz McBee, pled guilty to aggravated assault and was placed on judicial diversion for a period of three years. Following his later conviction for another crime in April 2022, the trial court rescinded the diversion, entered an adjudication of guilt, and sentenced the Defendant to serve a term of three years for the aggravated assault conviction. In 2024, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his aggravated assault case and that his original plea was invalid. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as being untimely, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we agree that the post-conviction petition was untimely and that principles of due process did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. We respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioners, Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze, seek post-conviction relief from their respective convictions related to their infant son’s death in 2000 from abusive head trauma (“AHT”). The post-conviction court afforded the Petitioners an evidentiary hearing at which they presented purported “new scientific evidence” through various experts in an effort to establish their actual innocence. The State, through the Office of the District Attorney General for the Twentieth Judicial District (“District Attorney”), admitted the facts asserted by the Petitioners and agreed that the Petitioners were actually innocent of these offenses. Nonetheless, the post-conviction court determined that the Petitioners had failed to carry their burden of producing clear and convincing proof to establish their actual innocence, a determination which the Petitioners now challenge. On appeal, the State, through the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter (“Attorney General”), contends that the Petitioners failed to prove their actual innocence based on new scientific evidence, instead proffering only new opinions on previously presented evidence, which supports the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. In addition to the underlying substantive merits of their actual innocence claims, the Petitioners also raise certain procedural issues: (1) whether review of Mr. Maze’s appeal, which began as a motion to reopen his prior post- conviction petition, is permissive or an appeal as of right; (2) whether Mrs. Maze’s petition for post-conviction relief, her first, is time-barred; (3) whether the State improperly changed its position on appeal in violation of due process, judicial estoppel, and waiver; (4) whether the post-conviction court’s ruling infringed upon prosecutorial discretion and violated the party-presentation principle; (5) whether the post-conviction court erred by denying Mrs. Maze relief without independent review of her actual innocence claim; and (6) whether this case should be remanded to the post-conviction court for consideration of the original medical examiner’s recent recantation of his trial testimony, which has occurred during the pendency of this appeal. After review, we determine that a remand is unnecessary and affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Bryan Ray Dudley, appeals his Franklin County Circuit Court convictions of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of life plus thirty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his suicide attempt following the victim’s murder and by neglecting to instruct the jury regarding proximate causation. Because we conclude that both the Defendant’s motion for a new trial and notice of appeal were untimely filed and that the interests of justice do not merit the waiver of the untimeliness of the Defendant’s notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

In 2021, the Defendant, Damon Bridges, pled guilty to multiple drug-related offenses, including several that were subject to enhanced penalties under the Drug-Free Zone Act. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years’ incarceration. In 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, asserting that later amendments to the Drug-Free Zone Act rendered his sentence unlawful. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s request for relief, and the Defendant appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform plumbing work on a condominium construction project. After completing the first phase of the work, the general contractor paid a portion of the total contract amount to the subcontractor. The general contractor then separately hired the subcontractor to do some excavation work on the project, though no contract was created for this aspect of the work, and no payment amount was discussed. After completion of the excavation work, a dispute arose over the amount charged to the general contractor by the subcontractor. The general contractor refused to pay what it believed to be too high a fee. The subcontractor insisted that the amount charged was reasonable. The general contractor then asserted that the subcontractor had materially breached the plumbing contract during the first phase. The general contractor eventually terminated the contract. The subcontractor filed suit. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the general contractor breached the parties’ contract, awarding lost profits and attorney’s fees to the subcontractor pursuant to the plumbing contract. The trial court also awarded damages to the subcontractor for the excavation work under a quantum meruit theory. The general contractor appeals. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the alleged mismanagement of two dissolved trusts established for the benefit of Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendant-trustees violated the trusts’ terms by regularly encroaching on the trusts’ corpus for unauthorized purposes, thereby exhausting the trusts’ assets. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the applicable statutes of limitations, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Oct. 22 suspended 17 attorneys for failure to pay the annual registration fee, 13 of whom also failed to file proof that client funds are held in an IOLTA-compliant account. View the fee suspension order and IOLTA suspension order. Of the lawyers suspended for fee and/or IOLTA violations this year, 11 have been reinstated to either active or inactive status in the last month. Access all administrative suspensions dating back to 2005.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and law firm Gibson Dunn have launched the ADL Legal Action Network, a nationwide coalition law firms offering free legal assistance to victims of antisemitism. The initiative comes in response to rising antisemitic violence and harassment across the U.S, according to a release. With engagement from more than 40 law firms across the country, comprising 39,000 attorneys across 35 states, the network connects victims with attorneys through an online portal that uses AI technology to triage and route cases. Victims of antisemitic discrimination, vandalism or violence can submit reports for evaluation by a team of lawyers. The program builds on ADL’s growing litigation work and its campus-focused helpline, expanding access to pro bono legal support nationwide amid a surge of anti-Jewish incidents.

The DeKalb County Commission voted to adopt a resolution authorizing the county to apply for a Historic Development Grant of up to $500,000 through the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development (TNECD), funding established for restoring and revitalizing some of the state’s most historic buildings. According to the Herald-Citizen, if approved, the grant would primarily fund preservation and renovation of the DeKalb County Courthouse, which was built in 1970. The County Commission discussed what costs the grant may cover, and decided to continue some of the most needed work, including a current bid to replace the courthouse's HVAC system. If awarded a grant, those funds will be used for other courthouse renovations.

Knox County General Sessions Judge Andrew Jackson VI announced his retirement, effective Dec. 31. Jackson has served Knox County for more than 40 years. Born in Knoxville and raised in Maryville, Jackson earned his law degree from the University of Tennessee (now Winston) College of Law in 1981. Jackson joined the law firm Wortley and Jackson and, in 1985, entered the Knox County District Attorney (DA) General's Office, where he served until his election to the bench in 2006. He has been re-elected twice. When asked about his decision to retire, Jackson said, “It has been my honor and privilege to serve the people of Knox County. I am grateful for the support I have received during my time as an assistant DA and as judge. I feel that now is the time to step down for the next generation of judges. Now I wish to spend time traveling with my wife and pursuing woodworking and photography,” Jackson said in a release. A retirement reception for Jackson will be held Dec. 18 from 1 to 3 p.m. CST in the City-County Building Small Assembly Room.