On August 27, 2025, Defendant Timothy Laquan Davis, Jr. filed an application seeking an extraordinary appeal of the trial court’s order, filed on July 24, 2025, denying his motion to strike the State’s notice to seek enhanced punishment in this case pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(d). Tenn. R. App. P. 10. Pursuant to prior order, the State filed its response on September 8, 2025. In the meantime, on September 2, 2025, Defendant Braze Roland Rucker filed an almost identical application for permission to appeal. Given the fact Mr. Davis and Mr. Rucker are co-defendants, and considering the identical issue being raised, the court hereby consolidates the two applications for purposes of its review. Tenn. R. App. P. 16(b). Upon full consideration, the applications are denied for the reasons stated below.
An extraordinary appeal may be granted from an interlocutory order of a trial court if this Court determines the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review” or “if necessary for complete determination of the action on appeal.” Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a). A party must obtain permission from this Court for an extraordinary appeal; it is not a matter of right. Id. To that end, an application for permission to appeal must contain a statement of the question(s) presented for review, a statement of the facts, a statement of the reason(s) supporting an extraordinary appeal, and the relief sought. Tenn. R. App. P. 10(c). Furthermore, the application must contain a copy of the trial court order from which an appeal is being sought, as well as copies of other parts of the record necessary for determination of the application, such as the transcript of any hearing held on the motion at issue. Id. Because, generally, there is no record on appeal when a party seeks an extraordinary appeal, it is the party’s responsibility to provide this Court with an ad hoc 09/12/2025 2 record of the proceeding below. The Defendants’ applications are adequate for this Court’s review.