Vanderbilt University Law School Dean Chris Guthrie recently announced that Michelle Parsons has been named the school's next assistant dean for career services. Parsons will assume the role from Elizabeth Workman, who is retiring this summer. Parsons has most recently served as director of outreach in the Office of Career Services. “I am eager to work alongside our talented students, faculty, staff and alumni to strengthen our ties with employers nationwide and ensure our graduates continue to thrive,” Parsons said of her new role. Trained as a lawyer, Parsons served in legal recruiting positions at Holland & Knight, Clear Diligence and Waller. She also worked on the admissions team at Belmont University’s College of Law earlier in her career. Read more in a press release from the law school.

The defendant, Tristan Weatherspoon, 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 affirm the trial court’s denial.

The Defendant, Jay Walker, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State failed to meet its burden of proving identity beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court gave an erroneous instruction to the jury during their deliberations. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Gary Dyquanne Cross, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of facilitation of first-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) cellphone record evidence that was presented to the jury was unreliable; (3) the trial court erred in allowing prejudicial photographs into evidence; (4) the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to “rehear” the testimony of a State’s witness during its deliberations; (5) the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial after an individual communicated to a member of the jury; and (6) the cumulative effect of the errors warranted a new trial. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Jeremiah Devon Cohill, was convicted by a jury of carjacking (count one), employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count two), aggravated assault (count three), and conspiracy to commit carjacking (count four). The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-four years as a Range I offender to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court committed plain error in its jury instruction for employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (3) his sentence is excessive; and (4) the judgment for count one contains a clerical error. Following our review of the entire record, the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we reverse, vacate and dismiss Defendant’s conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count two). In all other aspects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the defendant, Christopher Glenn Clark, of first- degree premeditated murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1); first-degree murder in perpetration of a felony, id. § 39-13-202(a)(2); burglary of a building other than a habitation, id. § 39-13-1002(a)(1); theft under $1000, id. § 39-14-103; unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a prior violent felony, id. § 39-17- 1307(b)(1)(A); and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a prior felony drug offense, id. § 39-13-1307(b)(1)(B). After a sentencing hearing, the defendant received an effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, murder in perpetration of a felony, and burglary. Additionally, he contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. However, we also conclude the trial court failed to make the required findings in support of its sentencing determinations, and therefore, vacate the defendant’s consecutive terms and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing to determine the appropriateness of consecutive terms.

A contractor purchased construction materials from a supplier and then failed to pay for the materials. The supplier brought suit to recover payment and later filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the supplier’s motion. Finding no error, we affirm and remand the matter to calculate the supplier’s appellate attorney’s fees.

The Tennessee Supreme Court permanently disbarred Davidson County lawyer James Daniel Marshall from the practice of law on May 20. The court also ordered Marshall to pay $2,000 in restitution to a former client and return all property taken from her within 30 days. The court took the action based on two complaints. The court found that Marshall failed to communicate with his clients, respond to multiple motions filed against his clients, comply with a court order requiring response, submit timely discovery responses, preserve client property, participate in court-scheduled conference calls, move his clients’ cases forward, and respond to disciplinary investigations. He also was found to have caused a client's lawsuit to be dismissed with prejudice. According to the court, Marshall's actions violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 3.2, 3.4, 8.1, and 8.4(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g).

In this parental termination case, the father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, Emory S. The trial court found that one ground for termination had been proven and that termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Based on these findings, the court terminated the father’s parental rights. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee contends she injured her right knee and both ankles when she fell off a motorized scooter while at work. The employer initially authorized certain medical treatment, but it later declined to approve the authorized treating physician’s referral to an orthopedic specialist or provide a panel of orthopedic physicians, repeatedly insisting that the employee must attend an examination with a physician of the employer’s choice first. The employee refused, and the employer filed a motion to compel the examination. Following a hearing, the court granted the motion but ordered the employer to honor the orthopedic referral made by the authorized physician before the employer’s examination could proceed. The employer has appealed. Upon careful review of the record and consideration of the pertinent statutory language, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.