This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order granting the motions of Defendant, Larry McKay, (“Defendant”) and Shelby County District Attorney General, Steven J. Mulroy, (“DA Mulroy”) to disqualify the Office of Attorney General and Reporter (“Attorney General”) from representing the State during Defendant’s capital error coram nobis proceeding. The trial court concluded that a recently enacted statute, which gave the Attorney General “exclusive control over the [S]tate’s defense of the request for collateral review” in capital cases, see 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 182 (“Public Chapter 182”), violated Article VI, § 5 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Attorney General obtained permission from the trial court and this court to file an interlocutory appeal on behalf of the State to address this constitutional issue of first impression. After thoroughly considering the briefs and arguments of the parties and amici curiae, this court concludes that the trial court erred in finding that Public Chapter 182 was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett has announced election updates for six counties impacted by Hurricane Helene. In Carter County, two election day polling places have temporarily changed. In Cocke County, the election commission has moved and early voting will take place at a new location. In Greene County, all locations are expected to be open by Election Day but voters are encouraged to monitor road conditions for possible closures. In Johnson County, officials are monitoring one polling place for access issues. In Unicoi County, early and election day voting locations have been updated. In Washington County, election officials are monitoring absentee ballots sent to affected areas. Voters can track their ballot status online or call 877-850-4959.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Each year, millions of acts of domestic violence, and over 1,500 deaths from domestic violence, occur in this country.1 While the law has long prohibited felons from possessing firearms, many domestic-violence offenders are convicted of mere misdemeanors. So, in 1996, Congress prohibited domestic-violence misdemeanants from possessing firearms in order “to close a dangerous loophole in the gun control laws,” given that “firearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination.” United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 159–60 (2014) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In Stimmel v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 198, 201 (6th Cir. 2018), we previously upheld this proscription, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), as constitutional. But the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), requires us to reconsider our precedent. We now hold that, even though Bruen abrogated Stimmel, the result remains the same: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Johnny Wilkerson, of two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed twenty-year sentences for each conviction and ordered them to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of forty years. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, and this court affirmed the judgments. State v. Wilkerson, No. W2016-00078-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 6596103, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 7, 2016), no perm. app. filed. The Defendant sought post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied, and this court affirmed on appeal. Wilkerson v. State, No. W2019-00459-CCA-R3-PC, 2020 WL 506781, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 30, 2020), no perm. app. filed. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, challenging the imposition of consecutive sentencing. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion on the grounds that consecutive sentencing was authorized pursuant to statute and therefore the Defendant’s sentence was not illegal. On review, having determined that the Petitioner has failed to state a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2018, the Defendant, Joey Lasean Scribner, pleaded guilty to possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years to be served on probation. The Defendant violated his probation, and the trial court reinstated his probation. In April 2023, the Defendant was stopped by law enforcement for speeding. Law enforcement determined that he was intoxicated. After a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had again violated his probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court failed to place adequate findings in the record to support its decision to fully revoke his probation. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In 2015, the Defendant, Ryan Leath, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued over $10,000, and the trial court sentenced him to six years, suspended, and ordered him to supervised probation. In May 2023, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation for being arrested for driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, and harassment. The trial court returned the Defendant to probation, extending it by six years, and ordered him to sign up and attend a mental health treatment program. In October 2023, the Defendant’s probation officer filed an affidavit alleging that the Defendant had not attended the program. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation after a hearing, and on appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Lonnie K. Cody, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probationary sentence for aggravated burglary, vandalism of $1,000 or less, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A dental patient brought this negligence action against the dentist who performed implant procedures on her and his dental practice. After the patient voluntarily dismissed the case against the dentist, the trial court granted the dental practice’s motion for summary judgment. We have determined that genuine issues of material fact exist as to when the dental patient reasonably should have discovered that the dentist had acted wrongfully. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s decision.

The State appeals a judgment against it for an injury caused by the gross negligence of its employees in the creation or maintenance of a dangerous condition on state-owned property. Because we conclude that the Tennessee Claims Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims for gross negligence, we reverse.

Gov. Bill Lee has announced that three more counties — Claiborne, Grainger and Sullivan — have been approved for FEMA’s public assistance program. Public assistance helps state and local governments in debris removal, life-saving emergency protective measures, restoring public infrastructure and hazard mitigation for future disasters. Several counties also received approval for permanent work assistance. The TBA Disaster Resources page offers general information for those impacted by disasters, as well as those seeking to provide assistance. The TBA's Helene Disaster Response page has information and resources specific to this disaster.