State of Tennessee v. Victor Curtell Scruggs
The Defendant, Victor Curtell Scruggs, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for the attempted first degree murder of his wife, the victim in this case. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to attempted second degree murder, with the length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentence and in ordering confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daversea Armen Fitts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Daversea Armen Fitts, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the amended post-conviction petition was not properly before the post-conviction court; however, the court retained jurisdiction over the original pro se petition. Additionally, we affirm the post-conviction court’s determination that the petitioner failed to meet the burden required of him and is not entitled to relief. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christian Deshawn Hyde
The Defendant, Christian Deshawn Hyde, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve the original three-year sentence for his aggravated assault conviction in confinement. The Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement and in failing to consider any other alternative to incarceration. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JERELL ANTHONY WILLIAMS
The Defendant has filed an application for interlocutory appeal, see Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 9, seeking review of the October 22, 2025 order permitting appointed counsel to withdraw from representation. Because the application is procedurally insufficient for this court’s review, an answer from the State is not necessary and the application is respectfully DENIED. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony S. Walker
The pro se Petitioner, Tony S. Walker, appeals the summary denial of his petition seeking various forms of relief from his first degree felony murder conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sade Janae Burrow
The Defendant, Sade Janae Burrow, appeals from the partial consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court upon resentencing following the revocation of her community corrections supervision, increasing her effective sentence from ten to sixteen years. She contends that the trial court erred by failing to weigh the relevant mitigating factors against applicable enhancement factors and abused its discretion by inappropriately imposing partial consecutive sentences as punishment for committing a violation of her original community corrections supervision. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mitchell Stanley Pozezinski, Jr.
The Defendant, Mitchell Stanley Pozezinski, Jr., was found guilty after a bench trial before the Montgomery County Circuit Court of two counts of violating the conditions of his community supervision for life by failing to comply with a polygraph assessment and by failing to complete a psychosexual evaluation. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-524 (Supp. 2002) (subsequently amended) (sentence of community supervision for life); 39-13-526 (2018) (violations of community supervision). On appeal, the Defendant asserts the p |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyler Mashburn
Defendant, Tyler David Mashburn, entered an open plea of guilt to one count of aggravated assault with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of the sentence. Prior to the sentencing hearing, Defendant requested judicial diversion and submitted a certificate of eligibility. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied diversion and imposed a five-year sentence of split confinement, with nine months to serve and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive and the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Isaac McDonald v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Isaac McDonald, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately review or provide him copies of discovery materials, by failing to adequately explain the terms of his plea agreement, and by coercing him into pleading guilty. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Griffin v. Robert Adams, Warden
The Petitioner, Steven Griffin, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Petitioner argues his sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to find he qualified as a dangerous offender and, accordingly, its imposition of partially consecutive sentences was improper. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keelan Washington
Defendant, Keelan Washington, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for judicial diversion. Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set forth its reasons for denying diversion and by failing to comply with the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Doryon Booth
The Defendant, Doryon Booth, appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original four-year sentence in confinement, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his probation and by failing to make adequate findings in support of its decision to revoke his suspended sentence. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Perkins v. State of Tennessee
Mario Perkins, Petitioner, appeals from the trial court’s denial of a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding because the “grounds alleged in the petition do not satisfy any of the criteria set out in Tenn[essee] Code Ann[otated section] 40-30-117 as ground to reopen, and have clearly been raised outside the statute of limitation[s]. . . .” Because the notice of appeal in this case fails to satisfy the requirements for an application for permission to appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-117(c), we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioners, Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze, seek post-conviction relief from their respective convictions related to their infant son’s death in 2000 from abusive head trauma (“AHT”). The post-conviction court afforded the Petitioners an evidentiary hearing at which they presented purported “new scientific evidence” through various experts in an effort to establish their actual innocence. The State, through the Office of the District Attorney General for the Twentieth Judicial District (“District Attorney”), admitted the facts asserted by the Petitioners and agreed that the Petitioners were actually innocent of these offenses. Nonetheless, the post-conviction court determined that the Petitioners had failed to carry their burden of producing clear and convincing proof to establish their actual innocence, a determination which the Petitioners now challenge. On appeal, the State, through the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter (“Attorney General”), contends that the Petitioners failed to prove their actual innocence based on new scientific evidence, instead proffering only new opinions on previously presented evidence, which supports the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. In addition to the underlying substantive merits of their actual innocence claims, the Petitioners also raise certain procedural issues: (1) whether review of Mr. Maze’s appeal, which began as a motion to reopen his prior post-conviction petition, is permissive or an appeal as of right; (2) whether Mrs. Maze’s petition for post-conviction relief, her first, is time-barred; (3) whether the State improperly changed its position on appeal in violation of due process, judicial estoppel, and waiver; (4) whether the post-conviction court’s ruling infringed upon prosecutorial discretion and violated the party-presentation principle; (5) whether the post-conviction court erred by denying Mrs. Maze relief without independent review of her actual innocence claim; and (6) whether this case should be remanded to the post-conviction court for consideration of the original medical examiner’s recent recantation of his trial testimony, which has occurred during the pendency of this appeal. After review, we determine that a remand is unnecessary and affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Takyris Seandale Simms v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Takyris Seandale Simms, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s guilty-pleaded conviction for second degree murder and his twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze v. State of Tennessee (Concurring in part/Dissenting in part)
TOM GREENHOLTZ, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join the court in affirming the post-conviction court’s rulings based on the record that was properly before it at the time. Its analysis is both well-reasoned and persuasively stated. But I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny the motion for a limited remand—and thereby deny the post-conviction court the opportunity to consider how Dr. Bruce Levy’s affidavit bears on the findings it previously made Finality is a fundamental value in our system—but it is not the only one. When the State’s own chief medical examiner recants the very testimony that established the cause and manner of death, the effect is not just to raise new questions. If credited, it calls into doubt the foundation of the trial and the reliability of the post-conviction court’s findings, which relied on that same testimony. If a foundation is in question, it usually calls for an inspection of the ground. In my view, a limited remand answers that call. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacquiz McBee v. State of Tennessee
In 2017, the Petitioner, Jacquiz McBee, pled guilty to aggravated assault and was placed on judicial diversion for a period of three years. Following his later conviction for another crime in April 2022, the trial court rescinded the diversion, entered an adjudication of guilt, and sentenced the Defendant to serve a term of three years for the aggravated assault conviction. In 2024, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his aggravated assault case and that his original plea was invalid. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as being untimely, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we agree that the post-conviction petition was untimely and that principles of due process did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. We respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Ray Dudley
The Defendant, Bryan Ray Dudley, appeals his Franklin County Circuit Court convictions of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of life plus thirty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his suicide attempt following the victim’s murder and by neglecting to instruct the jury regarding proximate causation. Because we conclude that both the Defendant’s motion for a new trial and notice of appeal were untimely filed and that the interests of justice do not merit the waiver of the untimeliness of the Defendant’s notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damon Bridges
In 2021, the Defendant, Damon Bridges, pled guilty to multiple drug-related offenses, including several that were subject to enhanced penalties under the Drug-Free Zone Act. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years’ incarceration. In 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, asserting that later amendments to the Drug-Free Zone Act rendered his sentence unlawful. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s request for relief, and the Defendant appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Whitcliffe McLeod v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Whitcliffe McLeod, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition for failure to prosecute. Based on our review, we conclude that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the post-conviction court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David A. Yost, Jr.
The Defendant, David A. Yost, Jr., appeals from his guilty-pled convictions for unlawful |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Louis Nelson
The Defendant, Jonathan Louis Nelson, was convicted by a Washington County Criminal |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ezekiel Abraham Schmaltz
The Defendant, Ezekiel Abraham Schmaltz, appeals his Knox County jury convictions of |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney Means v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court on the pro se Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal the post-conviction court’s denial of his motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. See T.C.A. § 40-30-117(c); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 10(B). The Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief because his sentence in the above-referenced cases was enhanced by prior convictions that were subsequently invalidated by a federal court. See T.C.A. § 40-30-117(a)(3). The State has responded in opposition to the motion, arguing that the federal court did not invalidate the Petitioner’s prior convictions but merely ordered that he be resentenced. Upon our review of the application and the State’s response, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioner’s motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Bonds v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court on the pro se Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. See T.C.A. § 40-30-117(c); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 10(B). The State has responded in opposition to the application, arguing that the Petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-117. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the State and deny the application. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
