The Petitioner, Omari Davis, pled guilty to possessing heroin with intent to sell or deliver. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a Range II, multiple offender to serve a term of eighteen years. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to seek a competency evaluation. At the hearing, the Petitioner also argued that trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to seek a continuance of the sentencing hearing. The post-conviction court denied relief as to the competency evaluation but did not address the continuance issue. On our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Ahmed G. Mohd Alkhatib, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his motion to vacate his 2006 guilty-pleaded convictions for two counts of facilitation of the delivery of marijuana, for which he received an effective eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence. The post-conviction court treated the motion as a petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the court erred by dismissing the petition after determining it was untimely. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

An employer terminated an employee after she requested unpaid commissions pursuant to her contract. The employee sued her former employer claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment, retaliatory discharge, and intentional misrepresentation. She also sought punitive damages. The jury found in the employee’s favor on all claims and awarded damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and retaliatory discharge as well as awarding punitive damages. The former employer sought post-trial relief, arguing the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent and that the jury’s punitive damages award was in error and excessive. The trial court concluded the verdicts were consistent but did reduce, while not eliminating, the punitive damages award. The former employer appeals, challenging the compensatory and punitive damage awards. We affirm.

This appeal presents two issues. First, we consider whether the District Attorney General’s Office should have been disqualified from prosecuting this case because the District Attorney General previously served as counsel for the accused in a separate case. Second, we consider the propriety of conducting a single trial for multiple offenses under the theory that the separate crimes were all parts of a larger, continuing plan. David Wayne Eady was charged in one indictment with committing multiple robberies in Nashville over the course of a month. Mr. Eady moved to disqualify the District Attorney General’s Office, primarily because the District Attorney General had represented him in a criminal matter approximately thirty years earlier. The prior matter resulted in a conviction that the State sought to use in this case to qualify Mr. Eady as a repeat violent offender for sentencing purposes. The trial court denied the motion to disqualify, noting the limited nature of the District Attorney General’s involvement in this case and the “mandatory nature of the repeat violent offender statute.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-120(g) (2019). Mr. Eady also moved to sever the offenses, which the trial court denied upon finding that the crimes were parts of a common scheme or plan and that the evidence of one offense would be admissible in the trial of the others. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(1). Mr. Eady ultimately was convicted as charged of eleven counts of aggravated robbery, two of which later were merged, and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. Upon Mr. Eady’s appeal as of right, a divided panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. State v. Eady, No. M2021-00388-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 7835823, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 14, 2022), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Jan. 31, 2023). The intermediate appellate court was unanimous in rejecting the challenge to prosecution of the case by the District Attorney General’s Office. Id. at *34–35. After noting that there was “no real dispute between the parties that [the District Attorney General] had an actual conflict of interest disqualifying him from participating in [Mr. Eady’s] prosecution,” the court seemed to proceed on the assumption that an actual conflict of interest existed but nevertheless held that this conflict did not require disqualification of the entire office. Id. at *34. In addition, a majority of the court upheld the denial of a severance. Id. at *28–30. One judge dissented, however, concluding that the offenses should have been severed because the evidence did not reflect that the offenses were parts of a larger, continuing plan. Id. at *38–42 (McMullen, J., dissenting in part). We granted Mr. Eady’s appeal to address both issues. As for the motion to disqualify, we agree with the State’s argument before this Court that the circumstances do not establish an actual conflict of interest for the District Attorney General, and we conclude that the trial court correctly denied the motion to disqualify the District Attorney General’s Office. As for the motion to sever, we have determined that the record does not establish that the offenses were parts of a larger, continuing plan. Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying a severance. However, we find the error harmless as to all convictions except the one in count eight. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in part, reverse it in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Members of the TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) joined lawyers from across the country in Louisville, Kentucky, this past weekend for the 2024 American Bar Association (ABA) Midyear Meeting. YLD members participated in ABA governance meetings and networked with other members of the profession. See photos from some of the events.

The Tennessee Supreme Court last week hosted state supreme court chief justices from around the country as the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) held its Mid-Year Meeting in Nashville. While normally only the chief justice from each state attends CCJ conferences, all five of Tennessee's justices were able to attend since the state hosted the event. Sessions included the impact of AI on the administration of justice, the practice of law and law school curricula, in addition to ethical considerations related to AI in litigation and the judiciary. The justices also heard Tennessee author Keel Hunt, Nashville School of Law Dean William Koch and Nashville attorney Hal Hardin recount the story of how former Gov. Lamar Alexander took his oath of office early to stop a pardon scandal. That account is chronicled in Keel’s book “Coup.”Learn more about the meeting.

The University of Memphis School of Law won second place in the nation in the 74th Annual National Moot Court Competition, held Jan. 31 at the New York City Bar Association. The national finalist team was comprised of students Thomas Fletcher, Kelsey McClain and Derrick Shawver and coached by Professor Barbara Kritchevsky. McClain also won the Best Brief Award and was runner-up for the Best Oralist Award in the final round. More than 130 teams competed in the competition, with the top two teams from each region traveling to the finals. Learn more about the competition.

Gov. Bill Lee outlined his $52.6 billion state budget proposal to lawmakers during his annual State of the State address Monday evening, the Tennessean reports. House and Senate members will consider budget legislation over the coming months. Big-ticket items in the proposed budget include $410 million in recurring funding and $1.2 billion in nonrecurring funding to simplify the franchise tax in Tennessee. While the current franchise tax has been in place for roughly 90 years, a change was necessitated by the threat of litigation, thus prompting the administration to address the issue now so the state can move forward. The budget also includes a $141 million appropriation to establish Education Freedom Scholarships. While specific details of the plan have yet to be revealed, Gov. Lee emphasized that it should be parents — and not the government — who decide where their children go to school and what they learn.

On the judicial front, it appears that many areas of the judicial system are slated to be funded at the same levels as the current FY 23-24 budget, including indigent representation. Increased funding for indigent representation remains a top priority of TBA, which is committed to working alongside the Tennessee Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts and others on this important issue. In related news, the executive committee of the Tennessee Judicial Conference, which represents all state judges, sent a letter to Gov. Bill Lee, Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, House Speaker Cameron Sexton and members of the Tennessee General Assembly stressing the need to increase funding for indigent representation in the state. Other legal organizations, including the TBA, also have written similar letters, which are posted here. For more information, and to join TBA’s grassroots efforts to support funding for indigent representation and other issues important to Tennessee attorneys, please visit TBA’s Government Affairs webpage.

The TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) is back with two new installments of its Rookie's Guide Series, which is designed to shed light on the foundational pillars of various legal disciplines. Each segment offers a deep dive into a practice area, ranging from the structured world of employment law to the nuances of family law. Specially curated for the next generation of Tennessee's legal professionals, this series promises more than knowledge — it paves the path to excellence. The February installment of the series will focus on family law, with topics such as divorce proceedings, child custody conflicts and adoption processes. In March, the series will focus on estate planning, with sessions on drafting, trust creation and asset protection. If you missed the initial offering in December, check out the personal injury installment now available on demand.

The American Bar Association’s (ABA) House of Delegates (HOD) approved a new policy this week that requires law schools to adopt free speech policies in order to maintain their accreditation, reports Reuters. The new policy, approved by a voice vote, requires that law schools develop and publish policies that “encourage and support the free expression of ideas.” The change comes after several high-profile incidents where law students disrupted speakers and amid campus tension over the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The HOD, which is the association’s policymaking body, also approved nearly 30 other new policies, including opposing laws that limit teaching about race or gender; urging governments to follow federal reporting guidelines for deaths in custody; opposing the suspension or removal of elected prosecutors for personal or partisan reasons or without due process; and supporting the Uniform Collaborative Law Rules and Uniform Collaborative Law Act. Read more about the new policies.