A bill proposed by Rep. Shaundelle Brooks, D-Nashville, would hold responsible those who knowingly provide firearms to those who are not allowed to possess them. HB0947/SB1191, which is named "Akilah's Law" for Brooks' son who was killed in the shooting at an Antioch Waffle House in 2018, passed the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on March 26 with bipartisan support and no substantive debate. The bill would create a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of imprisonment not greater than 11 months, 29 days, or a fine not to exceed $2,500, or both, for those who sell, offer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm to a person knowing that the person has, within the previous five years, been admitted, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to a mental institution unless the treatment was voluntary and solely for an alcohol abuse disorder and no other secondary substance abuse disorder or mental illness. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider the bill tomorrow. The Nashville Banner has more on the proposal.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is terminating parole protections for roughly 985,000 people who entered the United States through the CBP One app during the Biden administration. The app allowed individuals to make appointments at ports of entry to then seek asylum. The Hill reports that DHS has begun sending email notices to affected migrants telling them to self-deport through the Trump administration’s version of the app, now called CBP Home. Those who entered the country as part of the Uniting for Ukraine program and Afghans who entered under Operation Allies Welcome were not impacted by the action.

TBA General, Solo, & Small Firm Section members are invited to a section networking happy hour event at East Nashville Beer Works in Nashville on April 22 from 5-7 p.m. CDT. While an RSVP is not required to attend, it does help to better track the expected number of guests. Thank you to Emma Elliott with Peregrine Law for sponsoring this event!

In this post-divorce action, the parents filed cross-petitions to modify the agreed permanent parenting plan concerning their minor child. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that a material change in circumstance had occurred and that modification of the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. The trial court changed the designation of primary residential parent from mother to father and adopted a new permanent parenting plan, which granted 237 days with the child to the father and 128 days to the mother annually. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We deny the father’s request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

TBA's Immigration and Health Law sections will present Health Care Immigration Compliance in the Era of Trump 2.0 on April 9 at noon CDT. Speakers Todd Photopulos and Elizabeth Warren will discuss how health care providers should respond if ICE raids their facility, exploring the shifting policy landscape that meets at the intersection of immigration compliance and health law. You won't want to miss this timely webcast!

Pro se Petitioner, Shavone D. Page, appeals the summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. After review, we agree with the trial court that Petitioner has not raised a colorable claim under Rule 36.1, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Daniel Joe Otten II, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order to serve the remainder of his five-year sentence in confinement. Defendant argues that he was denied the right to confront witnesses at the violation hearing and that the trial court improperly based its finding on hearsay evidence without a showing of reliability; that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Defendant violated the conditions of his release and the trial court applied an incorrect standard by failing to distinguish between failure to report and absconsion; and that the trial court erred by ordering full revocation. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony without a finding of good cause or reliability. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Tennessee General Assembly is projected to adjourn for the year in mid- to late April, given that most legislative committees have already closed or are set to close within the week. The House and Senate Finance Ways and Means committees are meeting this week and next week to determine whether legislation that has been voted out of other committees with a fiscal note will be funded. Because the governor included $17 million for a new indigent representation plan in his budget amendment, the committees do not have to vote on whether to add that funding. However, at the end of session, the House and Senate leadership will meet and determine exactly which measures will be included in the final budget and how much the funding will be. The budget is the one piece of legislation that lawmakers constitutionally are required to pass before adjournment. Once the budget is approved, lawmakers will consider matters “behind the budget” that received funding, as well as other priority items. It is anticipated the session will adjourn a few days after that.

A Benton County jury convicted the Defendant, Jayson Keith Johnson, of reckless homicide and introduction of contraband into a penal institution. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant was a Range III, persistent offender. It also found that consecutive sentences were appropriate and sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. He also asserts that the State did not provide adequate pretrial notice that he would be subject to Range III sentencing. Upon our review, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. However, we respectfully remand the case for the trial court to resentence the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender.

Petitions involving child custody and support were filed in juvenile court. After a juvenile court magistrate ruled on the custody issues, Father filed a request for rehearing before the juvenile court judge under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-107(d)(1)(E). The juvenile court judge affirmed the decision of the magistrate without explanation or addition. Because neither the juvenile court magistrate nor the juvenile court judge adjudicated the pending child support matter, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.