Opinions
IN RE MERCURY H.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. In concluding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, the trial court made specific findings for twelve of the twenty statutory best interest factors but declined to consider eight of the factors based upon a purported pleading deficiency. Mother appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jeffrey Roach v. State of Tennessee
Jeffrey Roach, Petitioner, pled guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Lymn
Defendant, Thomas Lymn, appeals his Moore County Circuit Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Moore | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE BEAUM.,ET AL.
This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established abandonment by failure to visit and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We reverse, holding that the record does not support the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence in support of the alleged statutory ground of termination. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Andrew Berretta
A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Jonathan Andrew Berretta, of one count of vehicular homicide by intoxication and one count of vehicular homicide per se. The trial court merged those convictions and sentenced the Defendant to twelve years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises thirteen issues in three broad categories: challenges to the denial of his motion to suppress the seizure of his blood, trial issues, and a sentencing issue. Challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, he contends that the trial court erred by finding that(1) the affidavit supporting the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (“VUMC”) search warrant for his blood contained no false or reckless statements; (2)probable cause supported the search warrant and judicial subpoena; (3) the search warrant was not overbroad; (4) the search warrant and judicial subpoena established a sufficient nexus between VUMC and the evidence sought; (5) the VUMC blood draws were not the result of state action; and (6) an earlier warrantless EMS blood draw was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. Regarding his trial, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (7) admitting a life-in-being photograph of the victim; (8) finding that the VUMC specimen release form satisfied the business records exception to the rule against hearsay; (9) finding that chain of custody was established for the VUMC blood samples; (10) admitting the VUMC blood draw evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (11) instructing the jury on vehicular homicide per se in a manner that created an unconstitutional presumption of guilt; and (12) allowing the cumulative effect of those errors to deprive him of a fair trial. Finally, the Defendant maintains that the trial court erred in (13) ordering his sentence to run consecutively to a sentence he had pending in Davidson County at the time of these offenses. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Kadence B.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that four statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the minor child: abandonment, persistence of conditions, failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and severe child abuse. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Kiner v. Shelby County Government
In this case involving Tennessee’s Public Records Act, the plaintiff requested copies of |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
JRS Development, LLC v. Alaa Jwaad et al.
This appeal involves a breach of contract action for specific performance of a commercial real estate purchase and sale agreement. The plaintiff buyer brought suit after the defendant sellers refused to convey the property due to a dispute over a mandatory tax withholding. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the buyer specific performance and attorney’s fees. The trial court found that the sellers were bound by the agreement because, even though their real estate agent had appended their electronic signatures without contemporaneous authorization, they later ratified the transaction. The trial court further concluded that the sellers’ total refusal to close constituted an anticipatory repudiation, thereby excusing the buyer’s lack of formal tender of the purchase price. The sellers appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sheppard Washington v. Christopher Brun, Warden
Petitioner, Sheppard Washington, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court found that Petitioner’s request for relief, which was based upon a claim that his sentence had expired, was premature. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Charles McDowell II v. Jennifer Leigh McDowell
A mother petitioned to extend child support for her severely disabled child into adulthood. The court granted the petition. In doing so, the court used the child support guidelines to calculate the amount of support. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court should have included the child’s social security income in the calculations, but he did not file a transcript or a statement of the evidence. Because the lack of a transcript or statement of evidence prevents us from reaching the substance of the issue raised by the father, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marty Lynn Judd
The Defendant, Marty Lynn Judd, appeals from his Warren County Circuit Court convictions of second degree murder and possession of a prohibited weapon, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. He also asserts that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to hearsay and to leading questioning during the State’s direct examination of a witness. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher W. Gadsden v. State of Tennessee
Christopher W. Gadsden, Petitioner, sought post-conviction relief from his convictions for second-degree murder and theft, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because an attorney with the Office of the Public Defender of Metropolitan Nashville & Davidson County (herein “Public Defender’s Office”)previously represented the victim, thereby creating a conflict of interest that rendered trial counsel’s representation ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Ernest Rediker
This matter is before the Court upon application of the Defendant, John Ernest Rediker, for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. The State has filed a response in opposition. The Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his request for special jury instructions in this case. Upon full consideration, the application is denied for the reasons stated below. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russ Harden v. Pricilla Hill Harden
Appellant filed a petition for accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking recusal of the trial judge under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because it appears that a written motion to recuse was only lodged with the trial court and because the trial court never entered an order on the written motion, we dismiss the appeal. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Shawn Edward Sheeks
Shawn Sheeks (“Decedent”) and Paul Slate (“Mr. Slate”) co-owned and managed several business entities. Following Decedent’s untimely death, Mr. Slate, acting on behalf of the businesses they co-owned, filed a Verified Claim against Decedent’s estate in the Chancery Court (Probate Division) for Montgomery County seeking an accounting and damages of $382,207.48. Shortly thereafter, Janet Sheeks (“Ms. Sheeks”), Decedent’s widow and the Administratrix of the Decedent’s estate, filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (hereinafter “the Business Court”) on behalf of herself and Decedent’s estate against Mr. Slate seeking an accounting and to windup and dissolve the business entities. Mr. Slate filed a counterclaim against the estate and Ms. Slate, as well as cross-claims against the business entities, seeking an accounting and payment for debts allegedly owed to him. While the Claim in the Probate Court was held in abeyance, all claims by and among the parties in the Business Court were tried. In a detailed and thorough final order, the Business Court ordered dissolution of the business entities and allocated the distribution of the assets among the parties after applying offsets and credits. No one appealed the judgment from the Business Court. Thereafter, the Administratrix of the Estate filed a motion for summary judgment in this Probate Court proceeding contending the Claim should be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The Probate Court granted the motion and summarily dismissed the Claim on the ground of res judicata finding that the Claim was not a separate and distinct cause of action from the Business Court action, that the underlying facts at issue were the same in both lawsuits, and that the Claim could have, and should have, been litigated in the Business Court action. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Beverly Louise Ingram
In this appeal, the appellants challenge administrative and legal fees the trial court awarded the administrators of the estate and the parties’ respective legal counsel. We have determined that these issues have been waived for a variety of reasons including the appellants’ failure to comply with Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6 and Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We find that the administrator of the estate is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered and expenses incurred in defending this appeal. We also find this appeal to be frivolous. We remand for the trial court to award the administrator an appropriate fee and to award damages in favor of the estate against the appellants, Robert Davidson, Sr. and Shuntae Davidson, for fees and expenses the estate incurred in defending this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Nicole Marie Beach v. Mark Phillip Beach
Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking to recuse the trial judge. Because Appellant did not file a written motion to recuse and because the trial court never entered an order on same, we dismiss the appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
David C. Sands v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, David C. Sands, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Rutherford County Circuit Court, alleging newly discovered evidence exists that demonstrates his innocence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney B. Mathews v. State of Tennessee
In 1996, a Montgomery County jury convicted the petitioner, Courtney B. Mathews, of four counts of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole plus twenty-five years in confinement. On June 24, 2025, the petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging “the indictment upon which his judgment is based is duplicitous and, therefore, void. ”The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding the petition failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Keontae Lyons
Defendant, Gregory Keontae Lyons, appeals from his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder; employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony; attempted sale of a Schedule I controlled substance; and conspiracy to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, for which he is serving an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude references to his age; and that the trial court failed to properly consider Defendant’s age as a mitigating factor in sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hendry Metal Building Repairs and Services, LLC et al. v. Hellen Michelle Allen
A bookkeeper allegedly made unauthorized payments to herself from company funds. After a bench trial, the court found the bookkeeper breached her duty of loyalty to her employers and unjustly enriched herself. On appeal, the bookkeeper faults the trial court’s evidentiary decisions and contends that the plaintiffs’ claims and the damage award were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hunter Jay Chantler
The Defendant, Hunter Jay Chantler, appeals from his jury conviction for aggravated sexual battery and resulting eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that (1) the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction due to the victim’s lack of credibility and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by questioning the minor victim during the State’s direct examination at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Taylor Thornton, III, et al. v. T.M.D. Farms, Incorporated
This appeal involves a complaint to quiet title and for injunctive relief and damages |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lumley
The Defendant, Joshua Cortez Moten, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Laura Naomi Clifton v. State of Tennessee
In May 2024, the Petitioner, Laura Naomi Clifton, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |