State of Tennessee v. Robert King Vaughn, Jr.
Defendant, Robert King Vaughn, Jr., appeals his convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated rape, for which he received a total effective sentence of 120 years’ confinement. Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder; (2) no reasonable trier of fact could find that he failed to establish the insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument by misstating Tennessee law and vouching for witnesses during the State’s closing argument. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Scott Knox
In 2023, the Defendant, Raymond Scott Knox, pleaded guilty to eleven counts of methamphetamine and weapons related charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of sixty five years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy A. Baxter v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy A. Baxter, appeals from the habeas corpus court’s summary denial |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Scott Wallis
Defendant, Darrell Scott Wallis, was indicted by a Maury County Grand Jury on three counts of automobile burglary. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to one count of automobile burglary to receive a Range II sentence at thirty-five percent with the trial court to determine the length of sentence and manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve three years and six months, suspended to probation after service of twelve months of incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the split confinement sentence. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrion Avantae Jones
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Terrion Avantae Jones, of one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, one count of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of four years to be served as three years in confinement at 100% with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He also contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jaquarious D. Carpenter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jaquarious D. Carpenter, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Harris
Defendant, Kevin Harris, appeals his Cheatham County convictions for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child. He contends on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish penetration; and (3) the prosecutor committed multiple instances of improper argument during closing by (a) commenting on Defendant’s failure to testify and (b) vouching for the victim’s credibility. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Connor Read
The defendant, William Read, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his eleven-year and six-month sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Heavenly M.
In this parental termination case, the mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, Heavenly M. The trial court found that four grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. The mother appealed. We affirm the trial court’s finding that four grounds were properly pled and proven: the grounds of abandonment for failure to support, abandonment for failure to visit, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child. We also affirm the finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mitchell Hopkins
A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Mitchell Hopkins, of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault while acting in concert with two or more people, reckless endangerment by discharging a firearm into an occupied habitation, and the employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motions for a severance and for a mistrial and in admitting statements from a non-testifying codefendant; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting a video compilation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brendan Nathan Morgan v. State of Tennessee
A Decatur County jury convicted the Petitioner, Brendan Nathan Morgan, of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of ten years imprisonment. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. In relevant part, the Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation, failed to adequately communicate with him, and failed to review the pretrial discovery with him before trial. After holding a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his third petition for post-conviction relief because it was time-barred. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Patterson v. Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security et al.
An administrative law judge entered an order of default against Appellant for failing to appear at a resetting of his contested case hearing on a civil asset forfeiture. On appeal, the Commissioner’s Designee for the Department of Safety and Homeland Security affirmed the administrative law judge’s entry of default, denying Appellant’s request to set aside the same order. Appellant appealed the Commissioner Designee’s decision to the Chancery Court, raising that the administrative officials lacked authority to default his case because they did not swear an oath of office commensurate with that sworn by judicial branch judges of the Tennessee state judiciary. The Chancery Court affirmed the administrative officials’ decisions. Appellant appealed to this court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Clarke v. State of Tennessee
State employee Insured received radiation treatment for tongue cancer. Insurance Company denied authorization of the treatment as “investigational” and not “medically necessary” pursuant to the insurance plan and its medical policy. After two direct appeals of the denial to the insurance claim administrator, Insured appealed to the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Claims Commission found that the treatment was investigational under the plain language of both the plan and the policy and thus not a covered expense. As the denial of coverage did not amount to a breach of contract, the Claims Commission granted Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
James Elton Gillies et al. v. Rebecca Noelle Mitchell Gillies
Father was held in criminal contempt for withholding visitation from Grandmother. The trial court found 28 counts of contempt and imposed a sentence of 280 days. The trial court also revoked the suspension of a prior 100-day sentence and ordered that sentence to be served consecutively to the 280 days. We conclude that because the visitation was withheld while an order of protection prohibiting contact between the child and Grandmother was in place, the trial court’s findings and the evidence presented are insufficient to support a finding that Father acted willfully. Accordingly, we reverse the finding of contempt and the revocation of the suspended sentence. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
William Joseph Robinette Et Al. v. Tina Robinette Et Al.
William Joseph Robinette and his daughters, Delores Reynolds and Jody Stewart, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in the Sullivan County Chancery Court (“the Trial Court”), seeking a declaration of their rights as the lawful owners of Fuller Enterprises, LLC against the right of ownership by Tina Robinette (“Widow”), the widow of Mr. Robinette’s son and Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Stewart’s brother, Will Robinette (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs later added Decedent’s estate and Fuller Asphalt Material, LLC, as additional defendants (collectively with Widow, “Defendants”). Widow filed abusive civil action (“ACA”) motions against Plaintiffs, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyler Michael Benson
The Defendant, Tyler Michael Benson, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcelle Antonio Tatum v. Leslie D. Tatum (Henderson)
This appeal arises out of a divorce action filed by the appellee/husband. Following a course of inaction by the appellant/wife, the trial court granted a final decree of divorce by default in favor of the husband. The wife filed multiple motions seeking to have the trial court alter or amend the final decree. The trial court ultimately granted in part, and denied in part, wife’s post-judgment motions. The appellant appeals the ultimate judgment of the trial court. Having determined that the appellant’s brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that her issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived. The appeal is dismissed. Additionally, the appellee requests his attorney’s fees incurred on appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to find this appeal frivolous and further decline to award appellee his attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
People First Auto Sales, LLC, et al. v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, et al.
A business sought a special use permit from the City of Memphis to operate a used car lot. At a meeting of the city council, the council voted to remand the business’s application back to the local land use control board. At the next meeting, the council reconsidered the application and denied it. The business filed a writ of certiorari challenging the denial, alleging due process violations and stating that the council failed to follow its rules of procedure. The trial court found that no due process right applied and that the council had properly followed its rules of procedure. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Faulk
A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Richard Faulk, of aggravated vehicular homicide, and he was subsequently sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in (1) allowing two Tennessee State Troopers who were certified as experts in accident reconstruction to testify as experts in occupant kinetics and (2) allowing the State to introduce a copy of the Defendant’s Tennessee Department of Safety driving record as evidence of his prior convictions when a copy of the driving record was not provided to the Defendant at the arraignment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-10-405(d). The Defendant also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrell Shannon
Defendant, Terrell Shannon, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape of a child and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-six years. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for rape of a child and that his convictions violate double jeopardy protections. Upon our review, we conclude that Defendant has failed to prepare a sufficient brief in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b). Accordingly, his issues are waived, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Connor A.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to support; (3) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (4) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (5) persistence of conditions; and (6) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. Because the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services does not defend the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home or substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, we reverse as to those grounds. And because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings that returning the child to Mother would pose a likelihood of substantial harm, we vacate the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. Otherwise, we affirm the decision of the trial court to terminate Mother’s parental rights. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Aveille on behalf of E.A. v. Bobby Moore
This appeal concerns the entry of an order of protection. The alleged victim’s father filed the initiating petition based upon an allegation of stalking. We vacate the entry of the order of protection, finding no evidence to sustain the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy D. Boyd, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Tracy D. Boyd, Jr., Petitioner, pleaded guilty to three counts of impersonating a licensed professional, one count of theft of property, and one count of forgery. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the indictments against him were defective, that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel, that his guilty plea was entered under duress, and prosecutorial misconduct. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed each of Petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner now timely appeals. After review, we remand this case to the post-conviction court for entry of a written order that sufficiently addresses all grounds presented by Petitioner, and which states the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding each ground as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111(b). |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Glenard Cortez Thorne v. Brandon Watwood, Warden
In 2008, the Petitioner, Glenard Cortez Thorne, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to a term of twenty-one years for each conviction. In 2024, the Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court failed to consider a required statutory mitigating factor at sentencing. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the habeas corpus court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals |