Petitioner, Brian Howard, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He argues trial counsel was ineffective in two ways: first, by failing to sever Petitioner’s trial from that of his co-defendant, or alternatively, failing to introduce the co-defendant’s pretrial statement to police during their joint trial; and second, by failing to waive lesser included offense instructions. He also raises a standalone due process claim, arguing that criminal defendants should have a constitutional right to affirmatively waive lesser included charges contrary to Tennessee law. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner appeals from the order of the post-conviction court denying his petition seeking relief from his conviction for first-degree murder. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues (1) that trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to or raise as an issue on appeal the admissibility Chamere Talley’s prior statement based on Tennessee Rule 803(26); (2) that the State and the trial court violated due process in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 803(26); (3) that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct an adequate closing argument; and (4) that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors deprived the Petitioner of a fair trial.1 We affirm.

President Donald Trump announced today that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi would leave the administration and move to “a much needed and important job in the private sector.” Trump called Bondi “a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend” and applauded her work driving down crime. Bondi’s deputy, Todd Blanche, was named acting attorney general. Blanche is a former New York prosecutor and white-collar defense attorney who was a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft before joining the president’s legal team. He defended Trump against criminal charges related to payments to an adult film star and against the now-defunct election subversion and classified documents prosecutions brought by a former Justice Department special counsel. The Hill has more on his career.

U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices appeared skeptical of the government’s argument that the 14th Amendment was adopted to give newly freed enslaved people and their children citizenship. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the founders could not have imagined the rise of “birth tourism,” where women come to the United States to give birth so their children have U.S. citizenship. The ACLU’s Cecillia Wang represented the challengers. She argued that the constitution establishes a “fixed bright-line” rule for citizenship that is “workable” and “prevents manipulation.” Trump, in a first for a sitting U.S. president, attended the proceedings and remained for Sauer’s presentation.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Ritu Gupta, an American, married Randy Ramgoolam, a Canadian, in 2017. Three years later, Ramgoolam applied for residency in the United States. Federal law allows an immigrant to become a permanent resident only if he can demonstrate that he will not end up on the public dole. To help her husband clear that hurdle, Gupta signed an Affidavit of Support, thereby committing to ensure that Ramgoolam’s income remains above 125% of the federal poverty line each year. The residency application was successful, but the marriage was not. When the couple divorced in 2022, they agreed that neither would pay spousal support to the other. Ramgoolam nonetheless filed this lawsuit against Gupta in federal court, claiming that she had failed to provide him the financial support promised by the Affidavit of Support. The district court dismissed the case, reasoning that the state court’s judgment of divorce precluded Ramgoolam’s claim. We affirm.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. A state jury convicted Barbara Jean Mercer of second-degree murder, tampering with evidence, and third-degree arson after police found two gunshot-riddled bodies in a burning car. Mercer petitioned for habeas relief in federal court, arguing that the state court violated her due process rights when it failed to give a defense-of-others jury instruction, that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing statement. The district court granted Mercer habeas relief on the jury-instruction claim but denied relief on the rest. We REVERSE the district court’s grant of habeas relief and AFFIRM the denial of relief on all other grounds.

Women incarcerated at the Women’s Therapeutic Residential Center in West Tennessee are suing Tennessee Department of Correction Commissioner (TDOC) Frank Strada for allegedly confiscating tablets that contained their digital property, family photos and messages from loved ones. According to the Nashville Banner, the suit accuses TDOC of promoting and profiting from a program offering the women the ability to purchase music and games on tablets where they also could receive emails and photos from loved ones. After launching the program, the department then allegedly confiscated the devices and replaced them with new tablets from another company. The suit was filed by national civil rights attorneys Thomas B. Harvey and Dami Animashaun, along with Nashville-based Kyle Mothershead with Relentless Advocacy.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The Armed Career Criminal Act requires a court to impose a minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for felons who possess firearms if they have three prior “violent felony” convictions. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The statute defines the phrase “violent felony” in part to include an offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another[.]” Id. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court in this case held that this definition covered three of Mario Delaine’s prior convictions and thus applied the 15-year minimum. Delaine has appealed. His appeal raises complex questions about the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act. To name a few: When deciding whether a state-law offense qualifies as a “violent felony,” must a sentencing court look only to the state-law precedent at the time of a defendant’s conviction, or may it rely on later state-court decisions that clarify the offense’s elements? And can an offense qualify as a violent felony if the defendant intentionally uses force against another person but does not intend for the force to cause an injury? Despite the excellent advocacy of Delaine’s counsel, we disagree with him over the Act’s requirements and the nature of his prior offenses. Because all three of those offenses are violent felonies, we affirm.

Lacy Frank Walls, III, Defendant, was convicted of evading arrest and three counts of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of forty years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court refused to consider all of the issues presented in his motion for new trial. After a review, we find the trial court erred by refusing to consider all the issues presented in the motion for new trial. On remand, the trial court should hold a new hearing on the motion for new trial, at which the trial court should consider all the issues in the motion. The trial court should also enter judgment forms for Counts Four and Five and enter corrected judgment forms in Counts One, Two, and Six, reflecting Defendant was convicted after a jury trial and the proper statute under which Defendant is required to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence.

According to WBBJ 7 News, Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeffrey Bivins has issued an order assigning four judges to preside over civil and criminal cases in Madison County General Sessions Court, Division 1, for Judge Mark Patey. The judges are 26th Judicial District Circuit Court Judges Donald Allen, Kyle Atkins and Joseph Howell and Senior Judge Roy Morgan. According to the order, the assignment will run through Aug. 31 and was issued to address the “judge’s reported abdication of his duty to hold regular, prompt dockets and adjudicate cases in a timely matter.” Bivins writes in the order that the situation has caused concern about the constitutional and statutory rights of litigants and strains on local resources.