Opinions
Steve Paschall v. Pension Board of the Memphis Light Gas and Water Division Retirement and Pension System, et al.
The petitioner was employed at the Light, Gas, and Water Division of the City of Memphis (“MLGW”). During his employment, the employee participated in a pension plan. The employee was terminated in July 2016 but did not apply for his pension benefits. In 2022, the employee filed two retirement applications that were rejected. Both applications sought the payment of pension benefits retroactive to the 2016 termination date. The employee appealed to MLGW’s pension board. The pension board accepted the second application and instituted the payment of benefits as of its filing date. However, the board declined to award benefits retroactive to 2016. The employee sought judicial review in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The court held that the decision to deny the first application was arbitrary and capricious and ordered the payment of benefits to be deemed effective as of the date it was filed. However, it found that the decision to deny the claim for retroactive benefits stemming from the date of termination was not arbitrary and capricious as it was in accordance with the pension system’s plan. The employee appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jontae A. Fischiettie v. Econo Auto Painting of West Tennessee, Inc.
Appellant brought this action after his car was painted the wrong color. During the course |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE NAME CHANGE OF JOHN MONTRAIL DARISAW
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Louis Thomas Smith
Defendant, Louis Thomas Smith, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s revocation of his supervised probation and the imposition of his original, ten-year sentence. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he violated the terms of his probation by absconding and asks this court to reverse that finding and “remand the case back to the trial court as a technical violation.” Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cedar Nordbye v. University of Memphis
The University of Memphis initiated termination proceedings against a tenured faculty |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montrell Reid
Defendant, Montrell Reid, appeals from his guilty-pleaded convictions for harassment and stalking, both Class A misdemeanors. Under the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days for each count, with the sentences to be served consecutively and the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At sentencing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for probation and ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments as to the denial of probation, but we remand for a determination of the percentage of service pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-302(d). |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
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. 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. 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 -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 | |
HAMILTON COUNTY v. TAX YEAR 2010 DELINQUENT TAXPAYERS
Following lengthy proceedings arising out of a delinquent tax sale of real property and attempted redemptions by two parties, the chancery court concluded that the taxpayer properly redeemed her property. The court then awarded the tax sale purchaser interest on the amount he had tendered for the sale, to be paid in part by the redeeming taxpayer and in part by another party that had unsuccessfully attempted redemption. The purchaser appeals, arguing that the court should have awarded him greater interest. The party that unsuccessfully attempted redemption argues that the trial court improperly disbursed to the purchaser funds beyond those to which he was entitled. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE THE CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARK T. YOUNG, ET AL. v. MARK T. YOUNG
This appeal concerns the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees in a conservatorship action. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm as modified. |
Hamilton | Court of 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 | |
LOVEDAY SPRINGS ET AL. v. KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE ET AL.
In this zoning matter, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondent county and property development company and dismissed the petitioners’ declaratory judgment action. The petitioners had challenged a sector plan amendment and rezoning as illegal. Contrary to the petitioners’ argument, the trial court specifically found that the county zoning body maintained the authority under Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-101 to impose conditions on the rezoning of the subject property. The petitioners have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE JARROD ANDERSON
This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 3, 2025. The notice of appeal |
Washington | Court of 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 | |
CCD Oldsmith Henry, LLC et al. v. Town of Nolensville
CCD Oldsmith Henry, LLC and Oldsmith Group LLC (collectively, “Oldsmith”) brought this civil action in the Williamson County Circuit Court alleging that the Town of Nolensville wrongfully refused to issue building permits that it promised to provide as part of a development project. The Town answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims alleging that Oldsmith failed to fulfill its promise to help pay for intersection improvements needed to support the project. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
William Kenneth Wade v. Robert Crosslin
This is an appeal from a will contest wherein the decedent executed the will at the hospital where he was a patient. Two hospital employees signed the will as attesting witnesses, and their signatures were then notarized by another staff member. After the decedent died, his son contested the validity of the will, and the matter was set for a hearing. The proponent of the will attempted to serve subpoenas on the two attesting witnesses at the hospital where they signed the will, one by process server and the other by certified mail. Neither attempt at service was successful, and consequently, neither of the attesting witnesses appeared at the will contest hearing. The notary did appear and testified as to the identity and presence of the attesting witnesses at the will’s execution. The proponent of the will sought to have both witnesses declared unavailable. The trial court declared unavailable the witness who was served using a process server but declined to do the same regarding the witness who was served by certified mail. Consequently, the court determined that the will was invalid. The proponent of the will appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion when it made a distinction between serving a subpoena using a process server and serving a subpoena by certified mail. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of 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 |