State of Tennessee v. Reginald D. Bond
W2023-01725-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

In 2012, the Defendant, Reginald D. Bond, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of attempted rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years of incarceration and ordered him to community supervision for life and to register as a sex offender. After his release, the Defendant was convicted of violating the sex offender registry, and the trial court sentenced him to six years, suspended to probation. He violated his probation by being charged with new offenses, so the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, seeking to correct an illegal sentence, contending that his sentence was illegal because the community supervision and sex offender registry requirements violated double jeopardy. The trial court summarily denied Rule 36.1 relief. On review, having determined that the Defendant has failed to state a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Willie Gordon v. Victor Murphy, et al.
W2024-00038-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gina C. Higgins

Pro se Appellant, Willie Gordon, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Circuit Court that was entered on December 15, 2023. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Jonathan M. Cooper v. State of Tennessee
E2022-01776-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Kyle A. Hixson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven Wayne Sword

The Petitioner, Jonathan M. Cooper, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief challenging his multiple convictions for aggravated sexual battery, incest, and rape
of a child. On appeal, the Petitioner argues the post-conviction court erred in denying his
motion to continue the evidentiary hearing requesting more time to develop recently
discovered evidence—the report of the victim’s medical examination. The Petitioner also
contends the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because (1) the State violated his
due process rights by failing to disclose Brady evidence at trial, i.e., the report of the
victim’s medical examination; (2) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to
trial counsel’s failure to familiarize himself with Rule 412 of the Tennessee Rules of
Evidence, and this failure resulted in the exclusion of evidence of the victim’s sexual
behavior with her stepbrother; (3) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to
trial counsel’s failure to object to the State’s improper closing argument; (4) he received
the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to properly address the
issue of venue; and (5) the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s deficiencies, along with the
State’s withholding of Brady evidence, violated his right to a fair trial. After review, we
affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Donte R. Swanier v. State of Tennessee
M2023-00233-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The Petitioner, Donte R. Swanier, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions of felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to convey an offer of settlement to him prior to trial, in failing to move for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the State’s proof at trial and challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal, in failing to pursue a conviction for a lesser included offense at trial, in failing to effectively argue against the admission of evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), and in failing to seek suppression of cell phone records and evidence obtained from a GPS tracker placed by law enforcement on the Petitioner’s vehicle. The Petitioner also maintains that the cumulative effect of counsel’s deficiencies deprived him of his right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. David Lynn Richards, Jr.
E2022-01468-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven Wayne Sword

The Defendant, David Lynn Richards, Jr., appeals his Knox County Criminal Court
convictions for three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure (Counts 1, 2, and 9),
two counts of rape (Counts 3 and 4), three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure
(Counts 5, 6, and 7), and one count of incest (Count 11).1 On appeal, the Defendant argues:
(1) if newly discovered forensic biological evidence had been presented to the jury, then it
likely would have changed the result of his trial; (2) if newly discovered forensic electronic
evidence had been presented to the jury, then it likely would have changed the result of his
trial; (3) if the newly discovered records related to victim’s mental health history had been
presented to the jury, then it likely would have changed the result of his trial; (4) his due
process rights were violated under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); (5) the trial court committed plain error by
permitting the State to play the entire recording of victim’s forensic interview; (6) he
received ineffective assistance from trial counsel; (7) the State’s erroneous election for the
rape offense in Count 4 failed to protect his right to a unanimous jury verdict in that count;
(8) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for sexual battery by an authority
figure in Count 1 and his conviction for rape in Count 4; (9) his dual convictions for sexual
battery by an authority figure in Counts 1 and 2 violate the prohibition against double
jeopardy; (10) the trial court abused its discretion by denying all forms of alternative
sentencing and by imposing a partially consecutive sentence; and (11) the cumulative effect
of these errors entitles him to a new trial. After review, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court.2

State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Hamilton
W2023-01127-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee V. Coffee

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Jonathan Hamilton, of first degree felony murder, attempted first degree murder, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve an effective life sentence plus twenty-six years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant, as well as an out-of-court identification; (2) admitting autopsy photographs; (3) failing to instruct the jury on aggravated assault, facilitation, and accessory after the fact; (4) allowing improper closing arguments; and (5) imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Tevin Wayne Griffin
M2023-01376-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

Defendant, Tevin Wayne Griffin, was convicted by a Davidson County jury for the premeditated first degree murder of the victim and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that during trial Defendant opened the door to previously excluded cell site location data and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted with premeditation. Upon our review of the entire record, oral arguments and briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tezozomoc Alcantar v. Dolgencorp, LLC
M2023-01143-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynne T. Ingram

A shopper slipped and fell on a slippery liquid that was on a convenience store floor, resulting in injuries. The shopper sued the property owner. The property owner sought summary judgment, arguing the shopper had not provided sufficient evidence to establish how long the liquid had been on the floor prior to the slip and fall. The trial court granted summary judgment. We reverse.

State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Young
M2022-00999-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Forest A. Durard, Jr.

A Bedford County Jury convicted Defendant, Charles Edward Young, of: (1) especially aggravated robbery; (2) first degree murder during the perpetration of a robbery; (3) premeditated first degree murder; and (4) conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus ninety years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his cell phone; the court erred in declining to compel the State to disclose evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and that the jury’s verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Dennis Steven Payne v. Estate of Wilmuth V. Groves Et Al.
M2023-01205-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ben Dean

In this probate matter, the plaintiff filed a petition to establish a lost will, submitting for admission to probate a copy of a handwritten document alleged to be the decedent’s holographic will. The trial court determined that the handwritten document met the requirements for a holographic will and that the plaintiff overcame the presumption of revocation afforded to a lost will. The decedent’s intestate heirs appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jason Lee Kinser
E2023-00987-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven Wayne Sword

In March 2021, the Knox County Grand Jury issued an indictment, charging Defendant, Jason Lee Kinser, with rape and aggravated burglary. Following a trial, a jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that he is entitled to plain error relief based upon testimony during trial that Defendant’s name was in a criminal justice database. Defendant also contends that he was under the influence of drugs during trial and was incompetent to waive his right to testify. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In Re Estate of Richard Wayne Penniman
M2023-00075-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge David Randall Kennedy

This appeal arises out of the trial court’s removal of the appellant as co-personal representative of a probate estate. The appellant also appeals the trial court’s ruling that he forfeited his right to a share of the estate assets. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Jeffery Riley v. State of Tennessee
M2023-01395-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner James A. Haltom

A pro se litigant brought suit against the State of Tennessee in the Tennessee Claims Commission, where his suit was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction and a failure to abide by the statute of limitations. We hold that the appellant has waived all issues on appeal by failing to set forth a legal argument, and we affirm the judgment of the Claims Commission.

Victoria C. Jensen v. Tyler C. Jensen
E2023-00315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Pamela A. Fleenor

In this divorce action, the husband appeals the trial court’s (1) distribution of the marital estate; (2) award to the wife of modifiable transitional alimony; and (3) two awards to the wife of alimony in solido, one for half of what the court found to be assets dissipated by the husband and one for attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the divorce. The husband also appeals the trial court’s adoption of the wife’s proposed permanent parenting plan and a requirement that the husband attend in-person reunification therapy with the parties’ children in their home city of Chattanooga. Upon careful review, we determine that the trial court erred in failing to set a determinate time period for transitional alimony, and we accordingly modify the transitional alimony award to a five-year period. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. Exercising our discretion, we deny the wife’s request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

In Re Kurt R. Et Al.
E2023-01108-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge John McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Brian J. Hunt

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 existed to establish the statutory grounds of severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision.

In Re Amiyah W. Et Al.
M2024-00080-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas C. Faris

This is a termination of parental rights case.  The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the two minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (4) severe child abuse; (5) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; and (6) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody.  The trial court also determined that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  As an initial matter, Mother asserts that, having surrendered her parental rights at the outset of the hearing (she later rescinded her surrender), the trial court was required to continue the hearing under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-112. We hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-112 does not require a trial court to either continue or delay a contested termination hearing when a parent surrenders his or her parental rights before or during the hearing.  We reverse the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse.  We affirm the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights on all remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

State of Tennessee v. Courtney B. Mathews
M2022-01210-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Don R. Ash

In 1996, a Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Courtney B. Mathews, of four counts of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The Defendant received consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each felony murder conviction and twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. The Defendant sought post-conviction relief, and this court subsequently held that he was entitled to post-conviction relief with respect to the motion for a new trial. On remand, the Defendant filed an amended motion for a new trial, and following a hearing, the trial court reduced his sentence for especially aggravated robbery to twenty years but otherwise denied his motion. On appeal, the Defendant raises challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the validity of the indictment, and the State’s failure to elect an offense; the admission into evidence of a black denim jacket; the State’s failure to correct false testimony; the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial based on an impermissible outside influence on the jury; the trial court’s refusal to allow additional closing arguments after it gave a supplemental jury instruction on criminal responsibility during jury deliberations; the trial court’s failure to issue an enhanced identification jury instruction; the trial court’s jury instruction on the reliability of fingerprint evidence; the State’s reliance on the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance during his trial while asserting that the aggravating circumstance could not be supported during the co-defendant’s subsequent trial; and the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself from the trial and post-trial proceedings. The Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to a new trial. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jeffrey L. Roberts v. Barry Lynn Carter, et al.
W2023-01316-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bruce Irwin Griffey

This is an appeal concerning the application of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, specifically to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-20-203, 29-20-204, and 29-20- 205 of the Act. At issue is the trial court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against a county government for damages sustained from an automobile accident allegedly caused by the washout of a road maintained by the county. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment regarding the plaintiff’s claims under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-20-203 and 29-20-204. As to certain holdings the trial court made with respect to the pursuit of relief pursuant to section 29-20-205, we do not disturb the action of the trial court inasmuch as the plaintiff effectively abandons any reliance on that particular Code section on appeal.

In Re Josephine H. et al.
M2023-01362-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kathryn Wall Olita

This is a dependency and neglect case. Appellants/parents do not dispute the trial court’s finding that the children are dependent and neglected. Rather, the sole issue involves whether the trial court’s disposition, under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-130, was made in compliance with section 37-1-130(c) and, if so, whether the placement of the children with their aunt was “best suited to the protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child[ren].” Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-130(a). Affirmed and remanded.

State of Tennessee v. Vincent Tredeau McCord
M2023-01209-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cynthia Chappell

The defendant, Vincent Tredeau McCord, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, three counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means, and he was sentenced to an effective term of sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in allowing testimony that the victim’s mother suffered a medical event that caused the loss of a pregnancy. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Taylor Wolfinger
E2023-01752-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Tammy M. Harrington

Defendant, Taylor Wolfinger, appeals a judgment from the Blount County Circuit Court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his previously ordered probationary sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he violated the terms of his probation and revoking his probation to serve his original sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brittany Lee-Ann Stanifer v. Derrick Tyler Stanifer
E2023-01545-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge John D. McAfee

This appeal arises from a permanent parenting plan entered after the father requested a modification of the existing plan. The father argues that the trial court failed to properly weigh the evidence when establishing the plan. However, the plan did not include a determination of child support. Thus, the order appealed is not final, and we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider the issue raised. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Kevin Millen v. Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development, et al.
W2024-00701-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

Pro se Appellant, Kevin Millen, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Chancery Court that was entered on April 19, 2024. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

State of Tennessee v. Joshua Adam Hill
E2023-00018-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lisa Rice

Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant, Joshua Adam Hill, on two counts of aggravated rape, one count of incest, and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, for which he was sentenced to an effective twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape and sexual battery by an authority figure and that the trial court committed plain error when it instructed the jury on the elements of those offenses. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Martinez Carter
M2023-00187-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Parkes

The defendant, Martinez Carter, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the revocation and disposition of the defendant’s probation.