Davidson County attorney Zachary Ty Carden on April 13 received a censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court. In the first complaint, Carden represented a criminal defendant in connection with adjustment of jail credits and seeking a furlough. He delayed in taking action for the client and failed to respond to the client’s communications. In the second complaint, Carden represented a client in pursuing a custody matter. He completed limited investigation of the client’s legal claims but did not file a petition or take other legal action, and he failed to respond to his client’s communications, which ultimately resulted in the client discharging Carden. Following his discharge, Carden did not refund an appropriate portion of the client’s fee. In the third complaint, Carden represented a client in pursuing contempt sanctions in a post-divorce matter. He prepared a draft petition but did not complete any other work for the client. Carden also failed to respond to the client’s requests for information about the status of the representation. Carden was found to have violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.16(d).

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. In 2018, Rieth-Riley Construction Company and its employees’ union representative began negotiating a new collective-bargaining contract. After eight years of battling on the picket line and in the courts, the parties still have no agreement. In its third appearance before this court against the National Labor Relations Board, Rieth-Riley petitions us to review the Board’s findings that the company engaged in unfair labor practices in 2021 and 2022. The Board asks us to enforce its order. For the reasons below, we deny Rieth-Riley’s petition and enforce the Board’s order.

The Petitioner, Crystal Lee Martin, entered an Alford or “best interest” plea to DUI on March 17, 2025, and her sentence was immediately executed as time served. On July 17, 2025, the Petitioner filed multiple post-conviction motions, including a “post-conviction relief packet,” which was related to her DUI offense, and also to a separate offense to which she had previously pleaded guilty, been given probation, and her ensuing probation violation convictions. The post-conviction court entered an order stating that the petition was not signed under oath subject to penalty of perjury and gave the Petitioner fifteen days to file an amended petition, and it denied all her other motions. The Petitioner filed a motion stating that her petition was, in fact, properly verified and indicating her refusal to file an amended petition. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Jaylun Malik Currie, appeals from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and aggravated criminal trespass and his effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel’s alleged multiple instances of deficient performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Coy J. Cotham, Jr., of first-degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a life sentence without parole and a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Coy J. Cotham, Jr., M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3778613, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 31, 2014). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post- Conviction DNA Analysis Act, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to DNA testing of a blue towel recovered from his vehicle. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

Appellant filed a complaint for judicial review of the Tennessee State Board of Equalization’s decision to deny his request for property tax relief. Because Appellant sought review of an administrative order that had not become final under the applicable version of tax relief statutes, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(a)(1) (“A person who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review”) (emphasis added). Affirmed

Ronald Matthew Lacy was a luxury car middleman. In 2015, through a series of electronic communications sent from Kentucky, Lacy persuaded the owner of a car dealership in Tennessee to wire him funds for a Mercedes. But Lacy never delivered the Mercedes or returned the funds. In this appeal, we consider whether a Tennessee court had statutory territorial jurisdiction to convict Lacy of theft for that conduct. We conclude that it did. We further conclude that Lacy’s theft conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. We therefore uphold Lacy’s conviction and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

April 6, 2026 - April 10, 2026.

The Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation is warning of a scam targeting workers’ compensation claimants, in which individuals falsely pose as judges, attorneys or government officials and request payment in exchange for benefits or claim settlements. According to a press release, scammers may contact victims by phone, email, text or video and use tactics such as spoofed email addresses, fake court documents and fabricated case information to appear legitimate. Officials emphasized that workers should never be asked to pay to receive benefits, as employers — not employees — are responsible for covering medical treatment for workplace injuries, and the bureau does not charge fees or request payments through methods such as gift cards, wire transfers or cryptocurrency. The agency urges individuals to verify suspicious communications through official state channels and report potential scams to law enforcement or the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an opinion today affirming the conviction of Ronald Matthew Lacy for theft of property over $60,000, concluding that the state had jurisdiction and sufficient evidence to support the verdict. According to a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts, Lacy, a Kentucky-based luxury car broker, was convicted after persuading a Lenoir City dealership owner in 2015 to wire funds for a Mercedes that Lacy did not own and never delivered. A Loudon County jury convicted Lacy of theft and Lacy moved for a new trial, arguing that Tennessee lacked territorial jurisdiction and failed to prove that he obtained Dyer’s money without effective consent. The trial court rejected those arguments and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Lacy’s conviction. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Lacy’s permission to appeal the decision. In its opinion, the court held that Tennessee had territorial jurisdiction because Lacy used electronic communications, including text messages and emails, to complete the transaction, and found the evidence showed he obtained the funds through deception, rendering the victim’s consent ineffective. The court upheld rulings by both the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals in rejecting Lacy’s arguments for a new trial.