The Petitioner, Clarence Willis Moore1, appeals the denial of his petition for post- conviction relief from his Class B felony drug convictions, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to review videotape evidence with him or to convey the State’s plea offer, and that the post-conviction court erred by concluding that the Petitioner was not a credible witness. Because the Petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel was previously determined by the trial court in the Petitioner’s motion for new trial, we conclude that the issue is waived. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Sonny Edmund Hudson, Jr., of two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-three years in confinement at 100%. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for the attempted first-degree murder of James Theus. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Dickson County jury convicted the Defendant, Lamisha Lanea Haynes, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction; (2) the trial court improperly excluded testimony about the victim’s prior gun use; (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight; and (4) her sentence is excessive. The Defendant also claims that the cumulative error of these issues warrants relief. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The pro se Defendant, Marcus Fitts, attempts to appeal the Sumner County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to remove the sexual offender registry requirement from his judgment of conviction for attempted aggravated sexual battery. Because the Defendant has no grounds to appeal the summary dismissal of his motion, we dismiss the appeal.

In this interlocutory appeal, the State asks us to review the trial court’s pretrial suppression of data from the Defendant’s cell phone. Before searching the cell phone, law enforcement officers sought and obtained a search warrant, which a magistrate authorized based upon its finding that probable cause existed to support the search warrant. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found on the phone, and the trial court granted the motion. The State asked for, and the trial court granted, an interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s ruling on the motion. After review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress.

This is an appeal from an order entered on January 2, 2025. The appellant filed her notice of appeal on February 24, 2025, together with a motion requesting an extension of time within which to file the appeal. Because the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be waived, we deny the motion for extension and dismiss the appeal.

After an unfavorable judgment in a detainer action for real property in general sessions court, the Plaintiff sought relief in Davidson County Circuit Court. Two and a half years later, after numerous resettings, the court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal addresses constitutional residency requirements for Tennessee municipal court judges. Article VI, Section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution requires inferior court judges to be “elected by the qualified voters of the district or circuit to which they are to be assigned [and] have been a resident . . . of the circuit or district one year” prior to election. Tenn. Const. art. VI, § 4. The appellant, Robin McNabb, proceeding pro se, filed an election contest against the appellee, Gregory Harrison, contending that he was constitutionally ineligible to be elected as Lenoir City Municipal Judge. Ms. McNabb asserted that “district” in Article VI, Section 4 refers to Lenoir City, and that Mr. Harrison had not lived within city limits in the year preceding. The trial court found that “district” as used in Article VI, Section 4 refers to the modern-day judicial district. Because Mr. Harrison resided in the Ninth Judicial District, the trial court found him to be eligible to serve as Lenoir City Municipal Judge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, but modified the trial court’s judgment, finding that Article VI, Section 4 required Mr. Harrison to be a resident of Loudon County, rather than the Ninth Judicial District. McNabb v. Harrison, No. E2022-01557-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 7019872, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2023), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2024). The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the Lenoir City Municipal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Loudon County General Sessions Court, “district” as used in Article VI, Section 4 means Loudon County. Id. We respectfully disagree. We hold that Article VI, Section 4 requires a candidate running for a municipal judgeship to be a resident of the same municipality to which they will be assigned. Therefore, Article VI, Section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution required Mr. Harrison to reside in Lenoir City. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the Chancery Court for Loudon County.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the State Department's application to vacate a district court’s order to issue payments of some foreign development aid funds. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to vacate the order. In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices stated that the district court should clarify how the State Department must fulfill its obligation, as the court’s deadline for issuing the aid had already passed. On Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump paused the disbursement of all foreign development aid for 90 days. According to SCOTUSblog, the district court is expected to hold a hearing on the aid groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction and if granted, would suspend the freeze on foreign-assistance funding going forward. This means that the dispute could return to the Supreme Court as an emergency appeal again soon.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently issued two unanimous decisions, addressing criminal law and judicial residency requirements. In State v. William Rimmel III, the court affirmed Rimmel’s attempted aggravated assault conviction but reversed his reckless endangerment conviction. The case stemmed from a 2018 road rage incident in Marion County, where Rimmel pursued Bobbie Burke on a motorcycle and smashed her car window with a loaded handgun. The court ruled that Burke’s knowledge of the gun was not required to uphold the assault conviction, as long as Rimmel intended to make her fear imminent bodily injury. However, it overturned the reckless endangerment conviction, finding that Rimmel’s actions did not create a reasonable probability of serious bodily injury or death since he never pointed the gun at Burke. In Robin M. McNabb v. Gregory H. Harrison, the court ruled that municipal judges in Tennessee must reside within the city they serve, as required by the Tennessee Constitution. The decision came after Gregory Harrison was elected Lenoir City municipal judge in 2022, despite not living within city limits. Robin McNabb, a losing candidate, challenged the election results, arguing that the constitutional residency requirement applies to the city, not a broader judicial district. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that because Harrison did not reside in Lenoir City, he was ineligible for the position.