State of Tennessee Roderick Darnell Stafford
Defendant, Roderick Darnell Stafford, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Counts 1 and 2, one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony drug offense in Count 3, and one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Count 4. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged in Counts 2 and 3, with the trial court to determine the length, manner, and alignment of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to four years’ confinement for Count 2 and five years’ confinement for Count 3, ordering the sentences to run consecutively for an effective sentence of nine years’ confinement. The remaining counts were dismissed. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) imposing enhanced sentences, (2) ordering consecutive alignment of his sentences, and (3) ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. After review, we remand the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment forms for Counts 1 and 4. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Laquala Malone
The Defendant, Laquala Malone, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyle Baptiste
The Defendant, Kyle Baptiste, appeals his Hardeman County Circuit Court conviction of |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nakeavious Milan
The Defendant, Nakeavious Milan, entered a guilty plea to one count of voluntary |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cortez Gore
The pro se Defendant has filed an application seeking an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation. Upon preliminary consideration, we determine that the application is procedurally insufficient for this court’s review. Therefore, the State need not file an answer to the application. The Defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal is DENIED |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jason O. Miller
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Jason O. Miller, of aggravated assault |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Brian Poe
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Jeremy Brian Poe, of one count of theft of property greater than $10,000, but less than $60,000. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain hisconviction, and the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III offender. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.However, following ourreview of the defendant’s sentence, we conclude the trial court erred in its application ofTennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-107(b)and in finding the defendant to be a Range III, persistent offender. Accordingly, the defendant’s Range III sentence requires reversal, and we remand this matter for resentencing. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerrod James (In Re: AA/AAA Bonding Company)
The appellant, AA/AAA Bonding Company, appeals its suspension from writing bonds in |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Douglas Garrett
A Macon County jury convicted the Defendant, Keith Douglas Garrett, of one count of unlawful photography and one count of observation without consent. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days and to register as a sexual offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the prosecution was void due to alleged defects in the arrest process and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to investigators under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).He also challenges the admission of digital evidence extracted from his cell phone and alleges that the State failed to disclose an additional forensic extraction report. In addition, he contends that the State engaged in an improper closing argument. Finally, he challenges the trial court’s sentencing determinations, including the denial of judicial diversion and alternative sentencing and the requirement that he register as a sexual offender. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kiger
On or about March 18, 2026, the pro se Petitioner, Christopher Kiger, filed what is purported to be a notice of appeal to this Court. Because it is unclear what the Petitioner is attempting to appeal, the Court filed an order on April 9, 2026, directing the Petitioner to show cause why this appeal shall be allowed to proceed. The Petitioner was ordered to identify any recent trial court judgment and/or order he seeks to appeal and to attach a copy of that judgment and/or order to his response. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Merv Conley Rodgers
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Merv Conley Rodgers, of aggravated assault |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael J.W. Potter
Defendant, Michael J.W. Potter, appeals the summary dismissal of his ex parte communication that the trial court treated as a petition for post-conviction relief and a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Cooke
Defendant, Anthony Cooke, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his probationand order to serve the remainder of his seven-year sentence in confinement. Defendant argues the trial court improperly admitted certified copies of arrest warrants as exhibits to the revocation hearing and that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Markell Nolen
A jury convicted the Defendant of one count of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to sell; one count of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to deliver; and one count of driving with a cancelled, suspended, or revoked driver’s license. The trial court merged the drug convictions and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of ten years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, the Defendant claims that he should receive a new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his drug convictions. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We further hold that the evidence is not sufficient to support the Defendant’s drug convictions. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the Defendant’s drug convictions and dismiss the charges. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Jordan A. et al.
This appeal requires us to determine whether the Tennessee trial court’s orders on telephone visitation and fees remain justiciable in light of the Colorado permanent custody order. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee/maternal aunt and uncle’s motion for telephone visits with the minor children. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for abusive civil action and attorney’s fees and costs. Because the custody of the children was adjudicated by the Colorado court, Appellant’s issues regarding telephone visitation are moot. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s claims for abusive civil action and attorney’s fees and costs. Affirmed. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kimberly Ann Scott v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kimberly Ann Scott, pled guilty in separate cases to one count of second degree murder and one count of reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of nineteen years. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered and that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Higgs, Jr.
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Richard Higgs, Jr., of rape of a child, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Huerta
Defendant, Michael Anthony Huerta, was indicted for three counts of first degree murder and pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder. Defendant agreed to be sentenced as a Range IIoffender with the length of the sentence to be determined at a sentencing hearing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve thirty-eight years at 100 percent release eligibility. On appeal, Defendant challenges his sentence as excessive and argues that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. Because Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elliot Arnaz Price
Defendant, Elliot Arnaz Price, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for one count of burglary. After trial, a petit jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court classified Defendant as a career offender and sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary;(2) the trial court committed reversible error in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior charge for burglary and of Defendant’s conduct underlying the burglary charge;(3)the trial court committed reversible error by classifying him as a career offender; (4)the trial court committed plain error in violation of Defendant’s confrontation rights by admitting the arresting officer’s affidavit from a prior theft case; and (5) the trial court committed plain error by improperly instructing the jury that the “without the consent of the property owner” element of burglary applied to Defendant’s “actions” rather than Defendant’s “entry” onto the victim’s property.2 After review, we conclude there are instances of error made by the trial court, but determine such errors were harmless and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shay Tyler Little
The Defendant, Shay Tyler Little, appeals his Montgomery County Circuit Court conviction of aggravated burglary, for which he received a suspended sentence of six years’ supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ralphelle Antre James
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Ralphelle Antre James, of second degree murder, unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective thirty-six years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises two related issues. First, he asserts that the trial court improperly denied his motion to continue the trial to investigate alate-added witness. He also argues that the trial court erred in allowing thelate-added witness to testify,contending that the testimonyviolated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)and denied him a fair trial. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. J.P. Burrow, Jr.
The Defendant, J.P. Burrow, Jr., appeals his convictions for two counts of rape of a child, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shaun Poole
The Defendant, Shaun Poole, pled guilty in the Henry County General Sessions Court to violating a no-contact order, and the court imposed a fully suspended sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the circuit court and subsequently sought correction of his sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The circuit court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider a Rule 36.1 challenge to a judgment entered in the general sessions court and dismissed the claim. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion. However, because the appellate record does not clearly establish the status of the Defendant’s remaining post-conviction claims, we remand the case for the circuit court to clarify the status of those claims and to conduct any further proceedings required by law. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelley Irene Engel Gambill
The Defendant, Kelley Gambill, appeals her Davidson County Criminal Court conviction of aggravated cruelty to animals, for which she received a sentence of two years’ supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court misconstrued the statute's “no justifiable purpose” language and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Kerry Pickle v. State of Tennessee
After pleading guilty in federal court, the Petitioner, Robert Kerry Pickle, pled guilty in 2014 to eight additional offenses in the Coffee County Circuit Court. The circuit court imposed an effective sentence of eight years’ incarceration. Eleven years later, and while still serving his federal sentence, the Petitioner filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus. He asserted that his state sentences had expired and that the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive sentences. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the Petitioner’s state sentences were aligned consecutively to his federal sentence and therefore had not expired. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals |
