State of Tennessee v. Thomas Koontz
Defendant, Thomas Koontz, appeals the judgment of the Criminal Court for Hamblen County revoking his probation and ordering execution of his original eight‑year, |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Scott A. Stiner
The Defendant, Scott A. Stiner, was convicted by a Union County Criminal Court jury of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and four counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-529(soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor)1(2018)(subsequently amended), 39-13-504 (aggravated sexual battery) (2018)(subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1)he did not receive a fair trial because the allegations and acts that constitute the basis of the convictions were different than the allegations in the indictment and the bill of particulars;(2) the court erred by failing to sever the offenses during the trial; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age conviction in Count 6;(4) he did not receive a unanimous verdict for aggravated sexual battery in Count 3; (5) the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial; (6) the court erred in admitting evidence in contravention of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) the court erred in admitting a diagram that was not properly authenticated; (8)the court erred by allowing expert testimony that went beyond the scope of the witness’s expertise; and (9) the court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing on all counts. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Scott A. Stiner - Concurring
I agree with the majority in affirming the trial court’s judgments and legal conclusions, save for one issue. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority opinion regarding the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of an uncharged sexual assault of a baby pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). I would find that the introduction of this evidence was in error; however, I would further find that the error was harmless in these circumstances and would affirm the convictions despite the error. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Louis L. Steele
Defendant, Louis L. Steele, was convicted by a Hardeman County Jury of one count of indecent exposure in a penal facility, and the trial court imposed a Range II, three-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction, consecutively to his Davidson County sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ulester A. Cross
Defendant, Ulester A. Cross, pled guilty to three counts of driving while his license was suspended, and one count each of simple possession of marijuanaand introducing contraband into a penal facility. He received an effective sentence of four years as a Range I offender, to be served on probationfollowing service of forty-five days. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking probationwithout making sufficient findings. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danterrio Devonta Poplar
A Hardeman County jury convicted the Defendant, Danterrio Devonta Poplar, of evading arrest in a motor vehicle while creating a risk of death or injury to others. The trial court imposed a three-year sentence, with 75 days of incarceration and the balance to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of law enforcement witnesses during voir dire and rebuttal closing argument and that the trial court should have given a curative instruction following the prosecutor’s statement. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Xavier Young v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Xavier Young, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of postconviction |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Devan Denton v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Devan Denton, of several crimes, including three counts of aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of fifteen years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and the Petitioner wassubsequentlyhoused in the Turney Center Industrial Complex in Hickman County, Tennessee. However, he was temporarily moved to the Shelby County Jailfor proceedings stemming from his post-conviction petition. While being held in Shelby County, the Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, which the habeas corpus court denied after a hearing. It is from this habeas corpus proceeding that the Petitioner appeals. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrew J. Withers v. Withers Collection, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises from a complaint originally filed in the Shelby County chancery court |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bruce Allen Ivy, Jr.
A Carroll County jury convicted the Defendant, Bruce Allen Ivy, Jr., of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of fifty-two years imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby V. Summers v. Johnny Fitz, Warden
The Petitioner, Bobby V. Summers, acting pro se, appeals from the summary dismissal of |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE JADEN H.
In this termination action, the trial court terminated the father’s parental rights to his |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Champion
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, John Champion, of one count of sexual |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Toran Harper v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Toran Harper, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Houston Thomas Wilkes
This case comes to this court by way of a delayed appeal. The Defendant, Houston Thomas |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Matthew Woodruff v. Jessica Ann Woodruff
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because Appellant failed to provide this Court with a copy of the motion to recuse filed in the trial court,the appeal is dismissed. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
SHERRY KELTCH EX REL.CHARLES KELTCH v. CANDICE MARIE WILLIAMS ET AL.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 23, 2026. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until April 23, 2026, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Kaileigh Marie Dunn v. Russell Allen Dunn, III
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Having reviewed the petition for recusal on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
CLAUDE R. ELLIS v. MELISA JANE GODFREY ELLIS
This is a long-running divorce case on appeal to this Court for the third time. The husband |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Hamid Houbbadi v. State of Tennessee
Hamid Houbbadi, Petitioner, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated burglary and sentenced to life in prison plus twelve years. State v. Houbbadi, No. M2022-01751-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 8525144, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 8, 2023), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 15, 2024). He was unsuccessful on direct appeal. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, amended pro se petition, and second amended pro se petition. He insisted on proceeding pro se. After a two-day hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues: (1) his Fifth Amendment rights were violated; (2) the State committed a Brady violation;(3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (4) the post-conviction court failed to address all the issues of “ineffective assistance of counsel caused by the court”; (5) the post-conviction court abused its discretion by declining to appoint elbow counsel; (6) the post-conviction court improperly ruled that service of subpoena by text message is invalid; and (7) he was denied due process of law. After a full review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL JASON HOLLOWAY
Defendant, Michael Jason Holloway, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of judicial diversion following his guilty plea to reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. He also contends that the State breached a material term of the plea agreement by taking a position on diversion at the sentencing hearing. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacquet Moore v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jacquet Moore, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his underlying conviction for aggravated rape. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to (1) perform adequate investigation in preparation for trial, including seeking funds for investigative services, and (2) effectively impeach the victim on cross-examination. As a preliminary matter, we remanded the case to the post-conviction court for the entry of an amended order to include sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on these two issues. After our review of the amended order, as well as the issues presented by the parties and the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Jefferson Atkins
The Appellant, Howard Jefferson Atkins, acting pro se, appeals from the Tipton County |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Isaiah M.
Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 12th motion to recuse. A final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment. Issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to recuse may be raised in Mother’s appeal of the trial court’s final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Isaiah M.
Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 13th motion to recuse. Because a final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment, issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s recusal motion may be raised in her appeal of the final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Court of Appeals |