Sean William Lee v. State of Tennessee
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. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Reed
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. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Toby Dunn v. State of Tennessee
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. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Marvin M. Green
The Defendant, Marvin M. Green, has filed a pro se application for extraordinary |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Gregory Ryan Webb v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gregory Ryan Webb, has filed a Motion for Appointment of |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Anthony D. Dean, Jr.
Defendant, Anthony D. Dean, Jr., was convicted by a Knox County jury of possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, (count two) and possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell a Schedule V controlled substance (Gabapentin), a Class E felony (count five), along with other charges not at issue in this appeal. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty-five years’ incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, the trial court erred in admitting prior convictions involving possession of cocaine with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, and the trial court erred by allowing a police officer to testify as both a fact witness and an expert witness. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Wendolyn Lee v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Wendolyn Lee, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that Petitioner received the effective assistance of trial counsel and that the remainder of his claims were either waived or previously determined. The State argues that the post-conviction court lacked the authority to consider Petitioner’s claims because a properly verified post-conviction petition was never filed and that Petitioner has otherwise waived consideration of his issues by failing to prepare an adequate brief. After review, we conclude that the post-conviction court had authority to consider Petitioner’s claims, but Petitioner has waived consideration of his claims in this court. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demonte Isom
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Demonte Isom, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Bledsoe v. Grady Perry, Warden
The Petitioner, Eric Bledsoe, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, he contends he is entitled to relief due to a defective indictment for his underlying charge of aggravated rape. However, as pointed out by the State, the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed late. Following our review, we conclude that the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing requirement because the Petitioner’s explanation for the late filing is based upon a misunderstanding of the “prison mailbox rule,” see Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 20(g), and the nature of his defective indictment issue does not warrant such. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carlos Ortiz v. State of Tennessee, et al.
The Petitioner, Carlos Ortiz, acting pro se, appeals from the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. After review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Hawkins v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the application of the Petitioner, James Hawkins, for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. The Petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office from representing the State in his capital post-conviction proceeding. The Petitioner raises numerous constitutional and statutory challenges to 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 182 (“the Act”), which gives the Attorney General “exclusive control over the state’s defense of the request for collateral review” in capital cases. The State has responded in opposition to the application, arguing that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the Act and, alternatively, that the Petitioner has failed to establish that this case merits extraordinary review. For the reasons set forth below, the Petitioner’s application is hereby denied. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert D. Rollings
Defendant, Robert D. Rollings, pled guilty to second degree murder in 2012 in exchange for an effective thirty-year sentence. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and entered a judgment form reflecting the agreement. Nearly thirteen years later, in 2025, Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that he was falsely imprisoned based on a judgment form that was not file-stamped by the trial court clerk. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion, insisting that the lack of a file-stamp on his judgment form rendered his conviction not final and illegal. Because we find that Defendant has failed to file a timely notice of appeal and that the interest of justice does not support waiver, the appeal is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRIS GREEN
The Defendant, Chris Green, was convicted by a Hawkins County Criminal Court jury of |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marty Allison Hobdy, Jr.
The Defendant, Marty Allison Hobdy, Jr., was convicted of aggravated assault and placed on probation for seven years. While on probation, he was charged with a second assault but was acquitted by a jury. After the acquittal, the State sought to revoke the Defendant’s suspended sentence based on the same alleged conduct. At the revocation hearing, the State presented no proof and instead urged the trial court to rely on its memory of testimony and credibility assessments from the prior trial. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation on that basis. On appeal, the Defendant contends, among other things, that the State’s procedure caused the trial court to cease functioning as a neutral and detached decisionmaker. Upon our review, we agree with the Defendant. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse and vacate the order revoking the Defendant’s suspended sentence and remand the case for a new hearing. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adonis Donnell Holbrooks v. State of Tennessee
Adonis Donnell Holbrooks, Petitioner, was convicted of attempted rape of a child, solicitation of a minor, especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and sexual exploitation of a minor via electronic means. State v. Holbrooks, No. M2019-02099-CCA-R3-CD, 2020 WL 6060440, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 19, 2020), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 4, 2021). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and Petitioner appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court because Petitioner failed to establish prejudice. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Schklar v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Brandon Michael Schklar, appeals the Marshall County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition because (1) his petition was timely filed and stated a colorable claim; (2) Tennessee case law allows for exceptions to the statutory post-conviction verification requirement; and therefore, (3) he should have been offered an opportunity to verify his petition under oath in an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ed Henry Loyde v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ed Henry Loyde, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition seeking DNA analysis of evidence related to his 2014 conviction for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. Petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, and we conclude Petitioner is not entitled to waiver of the filing deadline. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devaunte Louis Hill
Defendant, Devaunte Louis Hill, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of twenty-five years in confinement. Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Defendant’s proffered expert; (2) the trial court improperly limited Defendant’s cross-examination of a witness; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by finding that Defendant opened the door to cross-examination about delinquent behavior he committed as a juvenile; (4) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present evidence of Defendant’s gang membership in its case-in-chief; (5) the trial court improperly admitted part of a recorded jail conversation between Defendant and other parties; (6) the State engaged in improper argument during closing; (7) he is entitled to relief via cumulative error; and (8) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lerico Sullivan
Defendant, Lerico Sullivan, challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that because the only evidence supporting the revocation was improperly admitted testimonial hearsay, this court should reverse and dismiss the revocation proceeding. Defendant also challenges the trial court’s holding him in contempt twenty times during the hearing and ordering the ten-day sentences imposed for each contempt finding to be served consecutively. The State concedes that the trial court erred by admitting testimonial hearsay but asks this court to remand the case for a new revocation hearing. The State contends that the trial court did not err by holding Defendant in contempt or by aligning the sentences consecutively. Because the trial court erred by admitting testimonial hearsay without making the appropriate findings and because no other evidence supported the allegations that Defendant violated his probation, we reverse the revocation of his probation and dismiss the case. Regarding the twenty findings of contempt and related consecutive sentencing decision, we conclude that the evidence preponderates against three of the findings of contempt and reverse and dismiss those findings. We also conclude that the effective sentence on the contempt convictions should be modified to sixty days to be served in confinement. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified in part and reversed and dismissed in part. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Keith Gunn
A jury convicted the Defendant, David Keith Gunn, of one count of possessing fifteen grams or more of fentanyl for resale, one count of possessing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia. The Defendant also pleaded guilty to one count of driving on a suspended license with prior convictions. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of incarceration of seventeen years for these offenses. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence upon which his trial convictions are based. We find no error and affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Dale Rimmer v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the application of the Petitioner, Michael Dale Rimmer, for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. The Petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office from representing the State in his capital post-conviction proceeding. The Petitioner raises numerous constitutional and statutory challenges to 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 182 (“the Act”), which gives the Attorney General “exclusive control over the state’s defense of the request for collateral review” in capital cases. The State has responded in opposition to the application, arguing that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the Act and, alternatively, that the Petitioner has failed to establish that this case merits extraordinary review. For the reasons set forth below, the Petitioner’s application is hereby denied. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Rice v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the application of the Petitioner, Charles Rice, for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. The Petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office from representing the State in his capital intellectual disability proceeding. The Petitioner raises numerous constitutional and statutory challenges to 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 182 (“the Act”), which gives the Attorney General “exclusive control over the state’s defense of the request for collateral review” in capital cases. The State has responded in opposition to the application, arguing that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the Act and, alternatively, that the Petitioner has failed to establish that this case merits extraordinary review. For the reasons set forth below, the Petitioner’s application is hereby denied. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Lee Potts v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeffrey Lee Potts, claims the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition for relief from his conviction for attempted second degree murder. On appeal, Petitioner claims (1) that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-110(f), which requires that petitioners prove “allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence,” is inconsistent with Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and “erects an unconstitutional barrier to relief” and (2) that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain and call a use-of-force expert witness at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Lee Neece
A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Randall Lee Neece, of first degree premeditated murder. On the first day of trial, the Defendant moved for a change of venue, asserting that a newly installed “Victims of Violent Crime” monument outside the courthouse prejudiced prospective jurors. The trial court denied the motion, and the Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the Defendant does not challenge the denial of a venue change or the adequacy of voir dire but instead contends that the sworn jurors were exposed to extraneous prejudicial information through the monument. Upon our review, we conclude that this claim was not preserved for plenary review and does not warrant plain error relief. We therefore respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alejandro Avila-Salazar
Petitioner, Alejandro Avila-Salazar, appeals the denial of his pro se “Petition For a Writ of Habeas Corpus[,] Rule 36.1 Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence[,] Petition for Common Law Writ of Certiorari.” After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
