State of Tennessee v. Kortney Ball
This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Kortney Ball, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his pretrial motion to recuse. The Defendant waived his right to counsel and is proceeding on his own in the trial court. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen David Sterling
The Defendant, Stephen David Sterling, appeals from the trial court’s reinstatement of his original sentence in confinement following the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to enter an intensive residential drug and alcohol treatment program. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Darnay Graves
The Defendant, Justin Darnay Graves, appeals his convictions for the sale and delivery of heroin and the sale and delivery of methamphetamine in an amount of one-half gram or greater. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the State failed to establish that Madison County was the proper venue in which to prosecute him for these drug charges, contending the proof established that the transaction occurred entirely in Gibson County. After review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions for the delivery counts. We reverse the Defendant’s convictions for the sale of heroin and methamphetamine and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Darnay Graves -Concur in Part/Dissent in Part
I agree with the majority opinion insofar as it reverses the Defendant’s convictions for the sale of heroin and methamphetamine. Because I disagree that Madison County had venue as to the charges pertaining to the Defendant’s delivery of those drugs, I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of those convictions. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Darnay Graves -Concur in Part/Dissent in Part
I agree with the majority in its legal conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s and jury’s findings that the State had proven venue in Madison County on the counts of delivery of heroin and delivery of methamphetamine by a preponderance of the evidence. However, I must respectfully dissent from its finding that the State failed to establish venue in Madison County on the counts of sale of heroin and sale of methamphetamine by a preponderance of the evidence. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keylone Jones
The Defendant was indicted for one count of first degree premeditated murder for the shooting death of the victim, Michael Hawkins, Jr. Prior to trial, the Defendant filed two motions to suppress his statement to the police, both of which the trial court denied. The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress a photographic line-up identification. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury convicted the Defendant of second degree murder. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to twenty years of imprisonment. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress his statement. The Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by allowing one of the trial witnesses to identify him in court. Upon our review, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence. We remand this matter for the entry of a corrected judgment order. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
VERNON LEE IVEY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Petitioner, Vernon Lee Ivey, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Petitioner of his full sentencing exposure and statutory ineligibility for probation before Petitioner entered an open guilty plea. Petitioner also presents a stand-alone claim arguing that the post-conviction court erred when it determined that he intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. 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. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sean William Lee v. State of Tennessee
In March 2019, the Petitioner, Sean William Lee, pleaded guilty to attempting to violate the Sex Offender Registry Act (“SORA”), and the trial court ordered him to serve 270 days in jail. In July 2025, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that a federal preliminary injunction issued in his favor applied retroactively and rendered void his conviction for attempting to violate the registry. He also alleged that the State and his trial counsel failed to give him proper notice that he was required to register as a sex offender. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely. The Petitioner appeals, maintaining on appeal that his conviction for attempting to violate SORA is void, and that he was not properly informed by the State or his trial counsel that he would be required to register as a sex offender. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Smith
Defendant, Kevin Smith, appeals his conviction for vandalism of property valued at $60,000 or more but less than $250,000, for which he received a thirty-year sentence as a career offender. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carmen Noe Garcia Guox
The State appeals from the judgment of the trial court sentencing Defendant, Carmen Noe Garcia Guox, to eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration for patronizing prostitution from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred by imposing a Class A misdemeanor sentence because Defendant’s conviction is a Class B felony offense. Defendant responds that he entered a best interest plea to a Class A misdemeanor and that the relevant statute does not authorize a Class B felony conviction or sentence. Upon a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate Defendant’s plea, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donavous Drennon
Defendant, Donavous Drennon, was indicted with one count of second degree murder in Count 1, one count of aggravated assault resulting in death in Count 2, one count of tampering with evidence in Count 3, two counts of possessing a handgun after being convicted of a felony drug offense in Counts 4 and 5, and two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony after being convicted of a dangerous felony in Counts 6 and 7. Prior to trial, the trial court merged Count 5 into Count 4 and bifurcated Counts 6 and 7. After trial, a jury acquitted Defendant on Counts 1 and 2 but convicted him on Counts 3 and 4, and the trial court dismissed Counts 6 and 7. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court committed plain error by improperly implying to the jury that the defense of self-defense did not apply to Defendant’s charge of possessing a handgun after being convicted of a felony drug offense; (2) the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents retrial upon reversal of his conviction for the same; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for tampering with evidence. After review, we dismiss Defendant’s appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve F. Mabe, Jr.
Defendant, Steve F. Mabe, Jr., appeals from his Smith County Criminal Court convictions for evading arrest, simple possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver, and manufacture of a Schedule VI controlled substance, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-three years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress all evidence against him and that the indictment should have been dismissed based upon a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamie Cunningham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jamie Cunningham, appeals the Grundy County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his untimely second amended petition for writ of error coram nobis. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
SANTORY ALEXANDER JOHNSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
The Petitioner, Santory Alexander Johnson, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOMO KENYATTA BERRY
A Knox County jury convicted the defendant, Jomo Kenyatta Berry, of one count of |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TODD LEE WHITE
A Knox County grand jury convicted the defendant, Todd Lee White, of unlawful |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LAMAR DENSON
The defendant, Lamar Lanair Denson, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
DEWAINE LOVE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
The pro se petitioner, Dewaine Love, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Lloyd
This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendant, Justin Lloyd, for review of the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion to revoke his pretrial bond. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes. For the reasons stated below, the Defendant’s motion is denied. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demontrey Monquisze Logsdon
Defendant, Demontrey Monquisze Logsdon, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury, along with two co-defendants, for two counts of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder, along with several other charges. Defendant was convicted by a jury on all counts as charged, and Defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, Defendant asserts that he is entitled to plain error relief based on the admission of testimony by a detective who did not conduct the cell phone data extraction about which he testified. Defendant asserts he was denied his right to confront the witness who conducted the extraction. Because Defendant did not establish plain error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dale Maurice Teague
The Carroll County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Dale Maurice Teague, with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 1), possession of marijuana (Count 2), possession with the intent to use drug paraphernalia (Count 3), and possession of a prohibited weapon, to wit, knuckles (Count 4). After the trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal on the marijuana count, the jury convicted the Defendant of the remaining offenses, and the trial court imposed an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a prohibited weapon, knuckles; (2) the State violated two pretrial orders that resulted in the improper admission of hearsay and prior bad act evidence; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his initial motion to suppress and in denying his motion to reconsider the motion to suppress. After review, we affirm. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Harris Patterson, III
Defendant, George Harris Patterson, III, who was described at oral argument as a First Amendment Auditor, was indicted for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and assault on a first responder after an incident at a Davidson County Post Office. A jury found Defendant not guilty of resisting arrest but guilty of disorderly conduct and assault. Defendant appeals, raising several issues. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of the disorderly conduct statute under the First Amendment as applied to him, the trial court’s failure to give a special jury instruction, the trial court’s admission of a piece of evidence and testimony from a postal employee, and the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial. He also insists he is entitled to cumulative error relief. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Lynn Hollingsworth
The defendant, Tommy Lynn Hollingsworth, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his six-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the revocation of the defendant’s probation. As to the disposition of the defendant’s probation, while we affirm the judgment of the trial court to order confinement in case number 96-195, the trial court erred in imposing that disposition in case number 96-193, which had expired. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Lynn Hollingsworth - Dissent
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial in probation revocation proceedings attached on December 26, 2024, which is when the July 8, 2002 violation of probation warrant was served and the Defendant was arrested. In Allen, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “a probation revocation proceeding is a continuation of the criminal prosecution, and as such, the defendant . . . has a constitutional right to a speedy trial on ‘the offense of violation of the terms of probation.’” Allen v. State, 505 S.W.2d 715, 719 (Tenn. 1974). The Allen court then concluded that the “two year, eight month delay” between the issuance of the probation violation warrant and the revocation hearing violated the defendant’s right to a trial. Id. at 716-19. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EARL DAVID MANEY
The Defendant was charged with first degree premeditated murder after shooting and |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals |
