Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Ashley Dawn Boyce
Defendant, Ashley Dawn Boyce, appeals from the Maury County Circuit Court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence following her guilty plea to driving under the influence. Defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A). Upon review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the appellate record does not contain a copy of the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Betty Jane Davis v. Leesa Renna Davis, et al.
This case arises out of allegations that Appellees misappropriated Appellant’s inheritance funds for their own use. Appellant also alleges elder abuse based on the conversion as well as a physical altercation between Appellant and an Appellee. Appellees allege that Appellant gifted them the inheritance funds. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court concluded that: (1) because Appellant engaged in bad faith, the doctrine of unclean hands applied and barred her full recovery; (2) Appellees converted and misappropriated a portion of Appellant’s inheritance funds; (3) Appellees did not commit elder abuse; and (4) Appellant intended a partial gift of the inheritance funds to Appellees. Because the trial court erred when it sua sponte raised the affirmative defenses of bad faith and unclean hands, we reverse the trial court’s application of these doctrines to reduce the judgment awarded to Appellant. We also conclude that the trial court failed to consider the elements of elder abuse, the elements of a properly executed gift, and failed to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the same. As such, we vacate the trial court’s order as to Appellant’s elder abuse claim and Appellees’ gift claim. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment awarded to Appellant. The remainder of the trial court’s order is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Appellant’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is pretermitted. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Arnold Whitmore, et al. v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dylan Whitmore v. Melyssa Atkinson
This is an action to modify a permanent parenting plan. Mother appeals the trial court’s order finding her in civil contempt, modifying the parties’ parenting plan, and awarding attorney’s fees to Father. She also argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Father’s initial petition to establish a parenting plan. We have determined that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Mother’s failure to abide by the parenting plan constituted a material change of circumstance. However, Father failed to carry his burden of proof to demonstrate that modification of the 2021 parenting plan to designate Father as primary residential parent is in the child’s best interest. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment granting Father’s petition to modify. We affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Father and remand for recalculation of the parties’ child support obligations. Father’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal is denied. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Sparks v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Betty Sparks, appeals the denial of her post-conviction petition alleging that the post-conviction court erred in finding that she received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Lee Jones v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the application of the Petitioner, Henry Lee Jones, 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. Nolan T. Williams
The defendant, Nolan T. Williams, pled guilty to rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve an eight-year sentence in confinement with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. Following review, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TERESA SHINPAUGH
In 2023, the Defendant, Teresa Shinpaugh, pleaded guilty to one count of criminally negligent homicide and one count of aggravated neglect of an elderly or vulnerable adult, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts of her indictment and pursuant to the agreement that the trial court would determine the length and manner of service of her sentence. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of two and eight years with one year to serve in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced her to one year of confinement. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Jackson
A Hardeman County jury convicted the defendant, Randy Jackson, of indecent exposure in a penal institution, for which he received six years in confinement at 60%. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clata Renee Brewer et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al.
In the spring of 2023, The Metro Nashville Police Department (“Metro”) received several public records requests seeking information about a school shooting that occurred in a Nashville private school on March 27, 2023. Metro denied all such requests. The various requestors filed petitions for access to the records in the Davidson County courts, which were eventually consolidated into one action. The private school at which the shooting occurred, its affiliated church, and parents of surviving children intervened in the action as parties. These intervening parties advocated that the school shooter’s personal writings and other creative works, which Metro collected in the course of its investigation, should remain confidential. The trial court ultimately denied all petitions for access to Metro’s file for numerous reasons. The requestors appeal to this Court. Following our review, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the intervening parents have standing to raise arguments under the United States Copyright Act. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that neither Article I, section 35 of the Tennessee Constitution, nor Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-38-102, bar disclosure of any public records in this case. On all other issues, we reverse the trial court. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Carlos Gonzalez v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Carlos Gonzalez, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Bella H., et al.
The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her two minor children after finding clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to the children’s removal persist, that the mother failed to manifest an ability to assume custody of the children, and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The mother appeals. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
BARBARA MATTHEWS LAW v. HALBERT GRANT LAW, JR.
Halbert Grant Law, Jr. (“Husband”) and Barbara Matthews Law (“Wife”) divorced in 2020, and Husband appealed the ruling to this Court. In the first appeal, we determined that the trial court erred in classifying several significant assets and remanded the case back to the trial court. Following a hearing on remand, the trial court re-divided the marital estate and awarded Wife both alimony in futuro and alimony in solido. Husband appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Ewald v. Tetyana Ewald
Husband and Wife divorced. In ruling upon contested matters, the trial court adopted a parenting plan submitted by Husband with minor modifications, named Husband primary residential parent of the parties’ minor children, and granted Husband primary custody of his stepson. The trial court ordered Wife to pay child support and declined to grant her alimony. The court also categorized and distributed the parties’ marital property. The court denied Wife’s request to hold Husband in contempt for purportedly interfering with her parenting time. Because the parties agree there was error as to Wife’s income for purposes of the child support calculation and agree as to the number that should have been used for her income, we modify the trial court’s award of child support accordingly. We also conclude that the trial court erred in failing to value the marital property and to apply the statutory factors and make relevant findings in connection with dividing the marital estate. We conclude that the issue of primary custody over Husband’s stepson, who was nearly 18 at the time of argument in this case, is moot. We affirm as to the other issues presented in this appeal. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jing Han Belfiglio et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
A landslide led neighboring property owners to jointly file suit against Metro Water Services. Further investigation complicated their understanding of what may have caused the landslide, resulting in withdrawal of their shared counsel and in one property owner bringing suit against the other while still maintaining the action against Metro Water Services. While all three parties engaged in a variety of settlement-related actions, the suit filed by one property owner against the other sat largely dormant. This sparked a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The trial court held the motion in abeyance. While the settlement-related matters became ever more mired, the case did not move forward. Fifteen months later, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and awarded attorney’s fees. Because we are unable to determine the trial court’s basis for the award of attorney’s fees from its order, we vacate that portion of the judgment and remand for further findings. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Oldsmith Group, LLC et al. v. Mosby Cool Springs, LLC
In this complex suit over a breach of a contract to sell real estate, the trial court dismissed one of the plaintiffs in an order certified as final under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02, but it reinstated that plaintiff two years later. The court awarded the plaintiff-buyers specific performance, one of the limited available remedies under the contract. However, because the seller had meanwhile taken actions that may have made this relief impossible, the trial court also noted it would consider civil contempt in the event the seller would not perform, and would award approximately $12.2 million in damages, which was the measure of harm for the dismissed plaintiff party. The seller appeals. We conclude that the trial court erred in reinstating the party and that the proper method to challenge an improvidently granted 54.02 final judgment is appeal or an appropriate post-judgment motion. We also conclude that, although the party was erroneously reinstated, the seller is not entitled to a new trial on the issue of liability. Additionally, the trial court did not err in its determination that the seller committed the first material breach and did not err in awarding specific performance. This court cannot review a future and speculative contempt judgment, and we vacate the portion of the judgment delineating any future contempt award. We remand for consideration of whether the buyer is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal under the contract. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Craig Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Craig Taylor, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his Madison County convictions for first degree premeditated murder, attempted aggravated burglary, two counts of first degree felony murder, and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, for which he received a total effective sentence of life plus eight years. The Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to call expert witnesses to rebut the State’s experts. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chelsea C. Stewart v. Kyle P. Hester
This appeal arises from Mother’s petition to modify the parties’ parenting plan and request that Father be held in contempt for failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order generally finding that the parties simply had two different parenting styles and denying Mother’s request to modify the parenting plan. The trial court also found that the contempt matter had been addressed, but the trial court’s order lacked any findings of fact or conclusions of law concerning the alleged contempt. After review, we reverse the trial court’s determination that Mother had not proven a material change in circumstances to permit modification of the parenting plan. To that end, the matter is remanded for the trial court to conduct an analysis of whether a change in the parties’ parenting plan is in the children’s best interest pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). Further, we vacate the trial court’s order as it relates to the civil contempt action against Father. That matter is remanded as well for additional findings and conclusions related to Father’s civil contempt. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Shamarion J. Brown v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Shamarion Bown, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleges that trial counsel failed to adequately review discovery materials and offer an honest assessment about the strengths and weaknesses of Petitioner’s case. Petitioner contends that because of counsel’s alleged deficient performance he did not fully understand the nature and consequences of his guilty plea. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robin L. Duffer v. Marc N. Duffer
The present case is Husband’s second appeal in relation to the parties’ divorce. In the first |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Kavaughn Jones v. State of Tennessee
While unclear from the record, which does not include the relevant documentation, the Petitioner, Kavaughn Jones, states that he pleaded guilty in 2022 to two counts of attempted rape and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and that the trial court sentenced him to eight years to be served at 45%. In January 2025, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his case. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Petitioner appeals. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Fredna McAlister v. Calvin Miller
This is an appeal from an order reforming a deed to correct the legal description of the |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Guy A. Cobb v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Guy A. Cobb, appeals the McMinn County Criminal Court’s denial of his |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Christian Sanderson
Defendant, Christian Sanderson, pled guilty in two separate cases to four counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery. As part of the negotiated agreement, Defendant agreed to a five- to six-year sentence of incarceration on each count, with the trial court to determine whether to impose consecutive sentences. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve four consecutive six-year sentences, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering complete consecutive sentencing. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KENYON DEMARIO REYNOLDS
The Defendant, Kenyon Demario Reynolds, appeals from the judgment of the Knox County Criminal Court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Defendant argues that the trial court erred by summarily ordering a corrected judgment instead of holding a new sentencing hearing to resentence him to a legal sentence. Because the Defendant fails to state a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |