Carrington Owens v. State of Tennessee
Carrington Owens, Petitioner, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief from Petitioner’s convictions for four counts of rape of a child, twenty-three counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and twelve counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age and his effective thirty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shoshanna Cabanting
A Hancock County jury convicted the Defendant, Shoshanna Cabanting, of vandalism as a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with thirty days to be served in confinement and the remainder suspended to probation. In a prior appeal, this court reversed and remanded the case for a limited resentencing hearing. On remand, the trial court made additional findings and reimposed the same sentence. The Defendant again challenges the split-confinement portion of her sentence and requests that this court impose full probation instead. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arvel Joshua Terry
A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Arvel Joshua Terry, of domestic assault. The trial court sentenced him to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which was suspended after service of 120 days in custody. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his conviction for domestic assault; and (2) whether the trial court improperly denied defense counsel the opportunity to refresh a witness’s recollection. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reuben Hickok Fairfield v. Guy Bosch, Warden
In 2012, the Petitioner, Reuben Hickok Fairfield, pleaded guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to the offenses of second degree murder and tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-five years’ incarceration. The Petitioner later filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his arrest warrant was void and that, as a result, his indictment and judgments were likewise void. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Thomas Thompson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher Thomas Thompson, appeals from the Weakley County Circuit |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Junior Heifner
Defendant, Jay Junior Heifner, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s revocation of the three-year term of probation imposed for his 2021 guilty-pleaded conviction of theft, arguing that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke his probation because the violation warrant was void and that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. We conclude that because the affidavit in support of the violation warrant failed to comply with the statutory and rule-based requirements, the affidavit was void, the violation warrant was void, and the ensuing revocation proceeding was void. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether, in the absence of a validly issued probation violation warrant, Defendant’s term of probation has expired. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley J. Cooper
Defendant, Bradley J. Cooper, was indicted for one count of aggravated stalking and one count of harassment. The case went to trial, and the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The trial court merged Defendant’s harassment conviction into his aggravated stalking conviction and sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of two years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) his conviction for aggravated stalking violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 8; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated stalking; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to take judicial notice, admit testimony regarding, or allow him to otherwise argue that orders of protection generally expire after one year; and (4) his conviction for aggravated stalking and harassment violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. After review, we find that Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and we vacate Defendant’s aggravated stalking conviction. We affirm Defendant’s conviction for harassment in Count 2 but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment form, removing the condition that Count 2 is merged with Count 1. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffery D. Strong v. State of Tennessee
A Macon County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jeffery D. Strong, of selling dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III controlled substance. The Petitioner later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of the audio recording of the drug transaction; and (2) failing to raise the recording’s admission as an error in the motion for a new trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. In addition to his ineffective assistance claim, the Petitioner also contends on appeal that the post-conviction court erred by failing to resolve the question of pretrial jail credits owed to him. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Collin Kilpatrick
The Defendant, John Collin Kilpatrick, was convicted by a Lewis County Circuit Court jury of possession of drug paraphernalia and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of eight years at 85% release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding exculpatory information of addresses on file with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (“Board” or “Board of Probation and Parole”); that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct an in camera review of the Board’s records that were in the possession of the State, by denying the Defendant’s request for a special jury instruction on possession, and by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the State’s discovery violations; and that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wesley Allen Lacey
Wesley Allen Lacey, Defendant, was charged in a presentment by the Knox County Grand |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. DeWayne Winslow
Defendant, Dewayne Winslow, was convicted by a Knox County jury of possession of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony, failure to carry vehicle registration, and unlawful possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective 17-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the narcotics and firearm found in his vehicle and by allowing the State to introduce Defendant’s prior drug conviction as evidence of intent. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlie M. Gardner
The Defendant, Charlie M. Gardner, was convicted in May 1999 by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of one count of first degree murder and two counts of reckless aggravated assault. State v. Gardner, No. M1999-02214-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 306227, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 1, 2001). The Defendant’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. Id. at *13. On March 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to correct clerical errors in his judgments of conviction, which the trial court granted on April 11, 2025. The Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on May 12, 2025, arguing it was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the entry of his corrected judgments. The trial court summarily dismissed the Defendant’s motion for a new trial as untimely. The Defendant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William P. Eblen
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cliesha D. Tedunjaye
The Defendant, Cliesha D. Tedunjaye, was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of driving under the influence (“DUI) and DUI per se, Class A misdemeanors; possessing a handgun while under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor; violating the open container law, a Class C misdemeanor; and failing to maintain her lane of travel, a Class C misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant received an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as forty-eight hours in jail and the remainder on probation supervised by community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions of DUI, DUI per se, and possession of a handgun while under the influence because the State failed to prove her intoxication. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrew Wylie v. State of Tennessee
Andrew Wylie, Petitioner, filed a pro se petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus (“the Habeas Petition”), claiming that his sentence had expired and that he was being illegally restrained of his liberty due to the trial court’s refusal to award sentence credits for the time Petitioner served while on community corrections (“street credit”). The trial court summarily dismissed the Habeas Petition for failing to state a colorable claim. Because Petitioner failed to follow the mandatory procedural provisions of the habeas corpus statute, we affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of the Habeas Petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Christopher Pillow
Defendant, Timothy Christopher Pillow, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent felon, evading arrest with a motor vehicle, and identity theft. At sentencing, Defendant requested an alternative sentence under the Community Corrections Act. Instead, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ incarceration, finding that Defendant’s history of criminal conduct and the need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the current offenses warranted confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for community corrections. Following our review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amir Hassan Spears
The Defendant, Amir Hassan Spears, appeals from his convictions for first degree felony |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood
The Defendant, Wayne Morris Flood, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s probation revocation for his eight-year sentence for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 gram or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for the trial court to reinstate the Defendant to probation. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood (Dissenting)
I write separately because I reach a different conclusion than the majority as to the appropriate response to the trial court’s deficiency. I agree that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings on the record regarding the grounds on which it found that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. However, I disagree that a de novo review of the record supports a conclusion that the Defendant committed a technical violation rather than absconding. I will endeavor to briefly explain my reasoning. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Jones
The Defendant, Jarvis Jones, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that trial court failed to properly adhere to the two-step consideration for probation revocation and, as a result, abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant’s probation and that the record, considered as a whole, supports full revocation as the appropriate consequence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gardner Ford
The Defendant, Patrick Gardner Ford, petitioned the trial court to enter a guilty plea to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony crime of violence, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(b)(1) (Supp. 2022). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was to be sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in confinement. However, the State conditioned this agreement on the Defendant’s appearance at a later court date and his good behavior up to this court date; the State also informed the Defendant that his failure to fulfill these conditions would subject him to a sentencing hearing and the imposition of a sentence in his required sentencing range. When the Defendant failed to appear at this later hearing, the trial court conducted a full sentencing hearing, ultimately sentencing the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to twelve years in confinement for his conviction offense. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for an alternative sentence, specifically a sentence through the community corrections program. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Ellis
The Defendant, Corey Ellis, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Denisha Simmons
The defendant, Denisha Simmons, appeals the order of the trial court revoking her |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua F. Linebarger
Defendant, Joshua F. Linebarger, pleaded guilty to two counts of felony theft, reckless |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jansen L. Smith
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the Defendant was convicted by a Sequatchie County Jury of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 55-10-401. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days of supervised probation after service of twenty days in jail on weekends. In this appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting evidence obtained from an unlawful detention. The Defendant contends his arrest was without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and unsupported by probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Because the subsequent detention of the Defendant exceeded the duration of a Terry-type investigatory stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that any evidence seized as a result should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the Defendant’s conviction, and dismiss the charge in this case. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals |
