COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State of Tennessee v. Michael Sneed
W2025-00758-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tony Childress

The Defendant, Michael Sneed, appeals from his guilty-pleaded convictions for two counts of the sale of methamphetamine in an amount over 0.5 gram, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-17-417(a), (c)(1) (Supp. 2022) (subsequently amended). The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve a sixteen-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant, a Range II offender, contends the court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Pauline Virginia Spalding and Charles Martin Johnson
M2024-00044-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mark J. Fishburn

Defendants Pauline Virginia Spalding and Charles Martin Johnson were jointly indicted for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and impersonating a police officer. The Defendants were tried together by a jury, and the jury convicted both Defendants as charged. The trial court sentenced Ms. Spalding to fifteen years for the kidnapping conviction, three years for the assault conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the impersonation conviction. The trial court ordered Ms. Spalding’s sentences to be served concurrently, for an effective term of incarceration of fifteen years. The trial court sentenced Mr. Johnson to seventeen years for the kidnapping conviction, four years for the assault conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the impersonation conviction. The trial court ordered Mr. Johnson’s sentences to be served concurrently, for an effective term of incarceration of seventeen years. In this consolidated direct appeal, Mr. Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and also contends that his dual convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault violate double jeopardy. Ms. Spalding contends that the trial court erred in denying the admission of certain evidence; that purported dishonesty from one of the jurors during voir dire entitles her to a new trial; and that the trial court erred in sentencing her. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Justin Johnson a/k/a Straight Drop
W2025-00127-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jennifer Johnson Mitchell

Defendant, Justin Johnson-a/k/a Straight Drop, appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder, first degree premeditated murder, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty-five years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the admission of photographs of the victim’s body at the crime scene and during the autopsy, the trial court’s denial of his request to sit at counsel table during trial, and the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments. Defendant also contends that he is entitled to relief due to the cumulative effect of multiple errors. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN BASSETT
E2024-01681-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Kyle A. Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge G. Scott Green

The Defendant, John Bassett, appeals from his conviction for first degree premeditated
murder, for which he received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. On appeal,
the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction
because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the
victim’s death and that he acted with premeditation and (2) the evidence was insufficient
to support an enhanced sentence based upon the aggravating circumstance that the murder
was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court with respect to the Defendant’s conviction. However, we reverse the judgment
of the trial court with respect to the Defendant’s sentence and remand the case for the entry
of an amended judgment sentencing the Defendant to imprisonment for life.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VIDAL CHAD BRYANT
E2025-00493-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hector Sanchez

The defendant, Vidal Chad Bryant, pled guilty to attempted possession with the intent to
sell butyrylfentanyl, a Class C felony; possession with the intent to sell less than half a
gram of methamphetamine, a Class C felony; and possession of a firearm after having been
previously convicted of a felony drug offense, a Class C felony, for an agreed-upon
effective sentence of six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). On
appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion
to suspend the remainder of his sentence to probation. Following our review of the record,
the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s
motion.

Cedric Peter Hopgood v. State of Tennessee
W2025-01001-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

The Defendant, Cedric Peter Hopgood, pleaded guilty to multiple felony drug possession offenses and received an agreed-upon sentence of thirty-three years. See T.C.A. § 39-17- 417 (2025). The Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the trial court summarily denied. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Raymond Antonio Smith
M2024-01108-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Forest A. Durard, Jr.

Defendant, Raymond Antonio Smith, appeals from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and theft of property valued at $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, for which he is serving a sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient relative to premeditation and to the stolen property’s value. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. John Valentine
W2025-01411-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn W. Blackett

Movant, John Valentine, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, he argues that the indictment was defective and that his double jeopardy rights were violated. After our review, we affirm.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TONY CHARLES DAVENPORT
E2025-00452-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gary McKenzie

The Defendant, Tony Charles Davenport, was convicted by a Cumberland County jury of
reckless homicide, attempted second degree murder, and attempted voluntary
manslaughter, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-five years’
incarceration to be served as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the Defendant
claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of attempted second
degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter and that the trial court erred in
imposing consecutive sentencing. The State responds that the Defendant’s appeal is
untimely and should be dismissed. Because we conclude that the Defendant’s notice of
appeal was untimely filed and that the interests of justice do not merit waiver of the
untimeliness, we dismiss the appeal.

JACOB EVAN COYNE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
E2025-00589-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda B. Dunn

The Petitioner, Jacob Evan Coyne, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he
received the ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s (1) failure to
investigate or file pretrial motions challenging the credibility of an officer who investigated
his case, (2) failure to sufficiently meet with or to advise the Petitioner regarding the nature
of his case, and (3) failure to adequately advise the Petitioner regarding the status of plea
negotiations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Jonathan Hamilton v. State of Tennessee
W2026-00147-CCA-R10-PC
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer, Judge John W. Campbell, Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee V. Coffee

On February 4, 2026, the pro se Appellant filed an application for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. On February 6, 2026, this Court issued an order noting that the Appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 10 by failing to attach to his application any order issued by the trial court for which review may be available. See Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a), (c). However, the Appellant also requested relief pursuant to the writ of mandamus, asserting that the trial court had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. This Court requested a response from the State regarding the current status of the trial court proceedings and the appropriateness of the writ of mandamus.

DARENA L. DORSEY v. SCOTT DORSEY
E2024-00742-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael E. Jenne

This case arises out of the demise of a 20-year marriage. The trial court declared the parties divorced, equitably divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife alimony in solido, transitional alimony, and alimony in futuro. The husband appeals. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSHUA BOWMAN
E2025-00174-CCA-R3-ECN
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword

In 2011, a Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joshua Bowman, of multiple
offenses stemming from the robbery and killing of the victim. He appealed his convictions,
all of which were affirmed save one: his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping,
which we remanded for a new trial based on a jury instruction error. State v. Bowman, No.
E2012-00923-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 4680402, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2013),
perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014). In 2022, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ
of error coram nobis saying that there was newly discovered evidence in the form of his
mental and counseling records, which supported his “intellectually diminished capacity
argument.” The State did not file its response until 2025, and it asserted that the records
were not newly discovered because they were his own records and, therefore, known to
him. After a hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the petition finding that the petition
was untimely and that the Petitioner was not entitled to tolling because he was aware of his
educational limitations before trial and had discussed those limitations with his trial
attorney. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Byron Becton
W2025-00846-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jennifer Johnson Mitchell

Defendant, Byron Becton, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. James Andrew Paige
M2024-01550-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

Defendant, James Andrew Paige, appeals from his three convictions for rape, for which he is serving an eleven-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred (1) by admitting the victim’s hearsay statements; (2) by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) by failing to inquire into defense counsel’s unintentional contact with a juror or declare a mistrial. Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to a new trial. Because we find that Defendant has failed to timely file his notice of appeal and the interest of justice does not support waiver of that requirement, we dismiss the appeal.

Juan Cerano v. State of Tennessee
W2025-00379-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Kyle A. Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge David L. Pool

The Petitioner, Juan Cerano, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of certiorari or supersedeas. Specifically, he contends that he is entitled to relief because he was twice punished for a single act in violation of double jeopardy and that merger of his convictions for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child was improper. The Petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed almost two and one-half months late; an issue pointed out by the State on appeal. Following our review, we conclude that the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing requirement because the Petitioner has given no explanation for the untimely filing, and the nature of his double jeopardy issue does not warrant such. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Kenneth Lee Cross v. A.W. Huggins, Acting Warden
M2025-00739-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael Wayne Collins

The Petitioner, Kenneth Lee Cross, appeals as of right from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues that his probation was revoked at a January 4, 2023 “furlough termination” hearing without counsel and without a valid waiver, rendering the judgment void. The habeas corpus court denied relief, finding noncompliance with statutory filing requirements and concluding the petition failed to state a cognizable habeas corpus claim. Based on our review, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition.

State of Tennessee v. Mario Reed
M2025-00099-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge William R. Goodman, III

The Defendant, Mario Reed, was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of evading arrest involving risk of death or injury, a Class D felony; attempted tampering with evidence, a Class D felony; and reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the reckless endangerment conviction into the evading arrest conviction and sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent seven-year sentences for evading arrest and attempted tampering with evidence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the indictment due to a violation of Article IV of the Interstate Compact on Detainers (“ICD”), (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted tampering with evidence and the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict for that offense, and (3) his seven-year sentence for evading arrest is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand the case to the trial court for sentencing on the reckless endangerment conviction.

Sean William Lee v. State of Tennessee
W2025-00954-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Kyle A. Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris Craft

The pro se Petitioner, Sean William Lee, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his guilty plea to multiple child sex offenses was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Specifically, he submits that he was misinformed the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation would be supervising him while he was on the sex offender registry, instead of the Tennessee Department of Correction, the entity actually supervising him, rendering his plea constitutionally infirm. Because this particular issue was not first properly presented in the post-conviction court, this court is without authority to engage in plenary review. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Jerome Barrett v. State of Tennessee
M2025-01620-CCA-R28-PC
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.; Judge Timothy L. Easter; Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The Petitioner, Jerome Barrett, has filed an application for permission to appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, Sec. 10(B). The State responds by asserting the application is incomplete and, thus, should be denied. For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the State.

State of Tennessee v. Albert Dejuan White - CONCUR
W2025-00253-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge A. Blake Neill

I write separately from the well-reasoned majority opinion because I would reach a different conclusion regarding whether law enforcement officers violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), as explained below. In all other respects, I agree with the opinion and concur in the results.

State of Tennessee v. Albert Dejuan White
W2025-00253-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge A. Blake Neill

Defendant, Albert Dejuan White, appeals his Tipton County Circuit Court trial convictions of possession with intent to deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during the search of his residence and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Toby Dunn v. State of Tennessee
E2026-00266-CCA-R9-PC
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: Judge Montgomery, Judge Greenholtz, Judge Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gass

The Petitioner, through counsel, has filed a “Notice of Appeal” seeking review of the post-conviction court’s order denying a motion for recusal. The one-page pleading informs the court that on February 13, 2026, the post-conviction court “declined to recuse but granted permission to appeal for an interlocutory order.” The pleading further indicates that the “[a]ppeal herein is taken under TRAP 9 and under TRAP 10B (2.01).” The appellate court clerk entered the pleading as an application for interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. Following our review of the Petitioner’s pleading, we have determined that a response from the State is not necessary and summarily deny relief.

State of Tennessee v. Marvin M. Green
E2025-02059-CCA-R10-CD
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: Judge Montgomery, Judge Hixson, Judge Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Street

The Defendant, Marvin M. Green, has filed a pro se application for extraordinary
appeal seeking dismissal of the indictment “on due process and equal protection grounds.”
Tenn. R. App. P. 10. Alternatively, the Defendant seeks the appointment of conflict-free
counsel and a speedy trial. Following our review, we deny the pro se application for
extraordinary appeal.

Gregory Ryan Webb v. State of Tennessee
E2026-00261-CCA-R10-PC
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: Judge Montgomery, Judge Hixson, Judge Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge McKenzie

The Petitioner, Gregory Ryan Webb, has filed a Motion for Appointment of
Counsel. The Petitioner alleges that he “does not have the financial means to retain
private counsel in this appeal.” He, therefore, requests “that this Court enter an
Extraordinary Attorney to represent [him] Pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Appellate
Procedure, Rule 10, Requesting Application for Extraordinary Appeal that requires
urgency.” The Petitioner further states that he is “additionally requesting an Attorney
who will not allow political influence, blackmail, and ‘other,’ to interfere with effective
assistance of counsel.” Because the Petitioner cited to Rule 10 in his pleading, the
appellate court clerk has entered this pleading as an application for an extraordinary
appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 10. Following our review, we deny the requested relief.