Nashville lawyers Erik Halvorson and J. Hunter Robinson, both with Bradley, will receive the TBA's prestigious Justice Joseph W. Henry Award for Outstanding Legal Writing on June 12 during the association's Annual Convention in Knoxville. The award, which will be presented at the Lawyers Luncheon, was established more than 40 years ago and is given each year to the lawyer who writes the most outstanding article published in the Tennessee Bar Journal for the preceding year. Halvorson and Robinson are being honored for their article One Domino Falls: Tennessee Supreme Court Reshapes Foreclosure Claims, which appeared in the March/April 2025 issue of the Journal.

In announcing the selection of Halvorson and Robinson, TBA President Heidi Barcus. said, “This winning article took a complex ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court and, in straightforward and concise language, explained the consequences for both mortgage-related and non-mortgage-related litigation in Tennessee. This is the kind of writing the Joe Henry Award was created to recognize.” The award is named for Joseph W. Henry, a former chief justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court, who was known for his forthright and clear writing. Read more in a press release from the TBA.

The TBA Mentoring Committee, in collaboration with the TBA Young Lawyers Division, gathered for its May monthly meet-up at Thursday night's Nashville Sounds game. The Mentoring Committee aims to foster meaningful connections among lawyers and law students by creating networking opportunities in relaxed, informal settings where relationships can develop naturally. In June and July, the groups will partner again to encourage TBA members to participate in TBA YLD pro bono clinics in Chattanooga and Gallatin. Learn more about the Mentoring Committee and its monthly meet-ups. Additional events will be announced soon and all are welcome to attend. The Mentoring Committee is co-chaired by Nashville lawyers Ross Smith and Alix Rogers. See photos from the event.

The Defendant, Nakeavious Milan, entered a guilty plea to one count of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-211 (Supp. 2022). Pursuant to his plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years, with the trial court to determine whether the Defendant would be permitted to serve his sentence on probation. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for full probation and ordered him to serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for full probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kyle Baptiste, appeals his Hardeman County Circuit Court conviction of rape, for which he received a sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner, Kevin Waggoner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing (1) the trial court participated in an ex parte jury proceeding which violated his right to an impartial jury; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to attend the jury proceeding at the local high school; (3) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to remove a juror who admitted during trial that she knew one of the State’s witnesses; (4) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to request a subpoena duces tecum for a single record from a juror’s Facebook record; (5) the post-conviction court erred in denying a subpoena duces tecum for the juror’s Facebook account; and (6) the cumulative errors undermine confidence in the verdict. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Roderick Darnell Stafford, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Counts 1 and 2, one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony drug offense in Count 3, and one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Count 4. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged in Counts 2 and 3, with the trial court to determine the length, manner, and alignment of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to four years’ confinement for Count 2 and five years’ confinement for Count 3, ordering the sentences to run consecutively for an effective sentence of nine years’ confinement. The remaining counts were dismissed. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) imposing enhanced sentences, (2) ordering consecutive alignment of his sentences, and (3) ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. After review, we remand the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment forms for Counts 1 and 4. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Jeremy Brian Poe, of one count of theft of property greater than $10,000, but less than $60,000. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III offender. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s conviction. However, following our review of the defendant’s sentence, we conclude the trial court erred in its application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-107(b) and in finding the defendant to be a Range III, persistent offender. Accordingly, the defendant’s Range III sentence requires reversal, and we remand this matter for resentencing.

The Defendant, Laquala Malone, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one count of aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s application for judicial diversion and imposed a three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying her request for judicial diversion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner, James Hudgins, was convicted in 2014 of first degree murder. State v. Hudgins, No. E2015-01363-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 4413281, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that Petitioner’s mother told multiple people she drugged him with Xanax on the day of the shooting. Hudgins v. State, No. E2019-02173-CCA-R3-PC, 2020 WL 7589670, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2020), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 7, 2021). Petitioner was unsuccessful in pursuing post-conviction relief. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that newly discovered evidence existed to show that his mother drugged him on the night of the shooting. In a supplement to the petition, Petitioner acknowledged the petition was untimely but claimed that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. After a hearing, the coram nobis court issued an order denying the petition. Petitioner appealed. After a review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Following a trial, a jury found Defendant, Brian R. Gadbois, guilty of ten counts of rape of a child, three counts of aggravated assault, seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, and four counts of indecent exposure, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of 475 years. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in not granting his request for a mistrial; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to sever offenses while simultaneously granting the State’s motion to proceed on both of his indictments during the same trial; (3) the trial court committed plain error when it allowed the State to introduce two reports that were prepared by individuals who did not testify at trial; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.