Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wayne Craddock
Defendant, Jesse Wayne Craddock, appeals his Wilson County Criminal Court jury convictions of felony murder and aggravated child neglect, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support those convictions, that the statute proscribing aggravated child neglect is unconstitutionally vague, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person, that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on intoxication, and that the imposition of a life sentence for his conviction of felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child neglect amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stanley H. Trezevant, et al. v. Collierville Auto Center, Inc.
At the conclusion of proof in a bench trial in a breach of lease action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the basis that both plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the individual plaintiff’s lack of standing rendered his claim moot but vacate the trial court’s decision regarding the plaintiff company. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Sumpter v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Teresa Sumpter, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Carole Sterbenz
Rhonda Carole Sterbenz, the Defendant, was convicted by a Coffee County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence (DUI), fifth offense; DUI per se, fifth offense; violating the open container law; and failing to exercise due care. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2024) (DUI); § 55-10-416 (2024) (open container); § 55-8-136 (2024) (failure to exercise due care). The DUI convictions merged, and the Defendant received an effective sentence of two years and one day. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support her DUI convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee
For events in 1994, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Tony Von Carruthers, of three counts of first degree murder, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his convictions, as well as filed for post-conviction relief, Federal habeas corpus relief, and motions to reopen. As relevant here, in 2021, the Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021. He sought fingerprint analysis comparison of prints taken from the home of two of the murder victims and known latent prints of Ronnie Irving, a man implicated in these murders by co-defendant James Montgomery in 2010. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition after concluding that the Petitioner was not entitled to mandatory or discretionary testing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Glyn Dale v. Guy Bosch, Warden
Glyn Dale, the Petitioner, appeals from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s order summarily denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State in its brief requests that this court affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the State’s request is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monica D. Sorensen v. Jayson R. Sorensen
The trial court denied Husband’s timely motion to alter or amend a divorce decree involving child custody, child support, and the distribution of military retirement benefits. Several days later, the trial court entered a Military Retired Pay Division Order. Husband’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the former order, but within thirty days of the latter order. Because we determine that the time for filing an appeal from the order denying Husband’s motion was not affected by the entry of the Military Retired Pay Division Order, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martinez Obrien Carter
The Defendant, Martinez Obrien Carter, was convicted in the Maury County Circuit Court of selling heroin, a Class B felony; selling fentanyl, a Class C felony; and casual exchange of fentanyl, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years; twelve and one-half years; and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) potential jurors were exposed to prejudicial extraneous information regarding his custodial status, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its cross-examination of a defense witness, (3) the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s impeachment of the State’s confidential informant; and (4) the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Based upon the oral arguments and our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyrome Cameron Ferguson
The Defendant, Tyrome Cameron Ferguson, was charged by a Monroe County grand jury |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vonda Star Smith v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Vonda Star Smith, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claim that the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Petitioner also argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) obtain a DNA expert, (2) object to a comment made by the trial court, (3) object to the State’s introduction of an undisclosed impeachment statement, and (4) call a corroborating witness. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jayshawn Edward Williams
Jayshawn Edward Williams, Defendant, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Hewitt and Kelli Hewitt
This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendants, James and Kelli Hewitt, for review of the conditions of their pretrial release. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes. For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants’ motion is denied. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetruice Bennett
In 2023, a Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Demetruice Bennett, of assault, |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elliott J. Schuchardt v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
This is an attorney discipline case. Elliott J. Schuchardt was licensed to practice law in Tennessee in 2008. Beginning in 2019, several individuals reported Mr. Schuchardt to the Board of Professional Responsibility. These complaints detailed conduct that implicated the following rules of professional conduct (“RPC”): RPC 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a)–(b) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.7(a)(1) (Conflict of Interest), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4(c) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.2 (Communication with a Person Represented by Counsel), 4.4(a)(1) (Respect for the Rights of Third Persons), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.2(a)(2) (Judicial and Legal Officials), 8.4(c) (Misconduct-Dishonesty/Fraud/Deceit/Misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct-Administration of Justice). A Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that Mr. Schuchardt violated these RPCs on forty-seven occasions and recommended disbarment. The Knox County Chancery Court affirmed. Mr. Schuchardt now asks us to reverse. Because ample evidence supports the decisions below, we affirm Mr. Schuchardt’s disbarment. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
James William Rose et al. v. Patrick M. Malone
In this grandparent visitation action, the grandparents filed a contempt petition, alleging that the child’s father had violated provisions of a previously entered visitation order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rendered an oral ruling and found the father in contempt. Before the trial court’s entry of a written order regarding contempt, however, the father filed a motion seeking the trial court judge’s recusal. The trial court entered orders adjudicating the contempt charges and the father’s bond before entering a written order adjudicating the recusal issue. The trial court then entered orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. The father has appealed. Upon review, we determine that the trial court erred by entering further orders before entering an order adjudicating the recusal motion. We therefore vacate the trial court’s August 2023 bond orders and the August 2023 order regarding the second contempt petition, which were entered while the motion to recuse was pending. We reverse the trial court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
CHARLES EDWARD COPELAND ET AL. v. SCG IV-KARCH’S CROSSING, LLC
This is an appeal from a premises liability, slip-and-fall claim against the owner of a shopping center. The husband slipped and fell while trying to get into his vehicle at a shopping center owned by the defendant company. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend, which the trial court denied. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Patrick Michael Wallen v. LC Germantown Owner, LLC
Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and it is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jaylun Malik Currie v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jaylun Malik Currie, appeals from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and aggravated criminal trespass and his effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel’s alleged multiple instances of deficient performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Matthew Lacy
Ronald Matthew Lacy was a luxury car middleman. In 2015, through a series of electronic communications sent from Kentucky, Lacy persuaded the owner of a car dealership in Tennessee to wire him funds for a Mercedes. But Lacy never delivered the Mercedes or returned the funds. In this appeal, we consider whether a Tennessee court had statutory territorial jurisdiction to convict Lacy of theft for that conduct. We conclude that it did. We further conclude that Lacy’s theft conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. We therefore uphold Lacy’s conviction and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals |
Loudon | Supreme Court | |
Crystal Lee Martin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Crystal Lee Martin, entered an Alford or “best interest” plea to DUI on March 17, 2025, and her sentence was immediately executed as time served. On July 17, 2025, the Petitioner filed multiple post-conviction motions, including a “post-conviction relief packet,” which was related to her DUI offense, and also to a separate offense to which she had previously pleaded guilty, been given probation, and her ensuing probation violation convictions. The post-conviction court entered an order stating that the petition was not signed under oath subject to penalty of perjury and gave the Petitioner fifteen days to file an amended petition, and it denied all her other motions. The Petitioner filed a motion stating that her petition was, in fact, properly verified and indicating her refusal to file an amended petition. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Coy J. Cotham, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Coy J. Cotham, Jr., of first-degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a life sentence without parole and a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Coy J. Cotham, Jr., M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3778613, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 31, 2014). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to DNA testing of a blue towel recovered from his vehicle. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Heintz v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization
Appellant filed a complaint for judicial review of the Tennessee State Board of Equalization’s decision to deny his request for property tax relief. Because Appellant sought review of an administrative order that had not become final under the applicable version of tax relief statutes, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(a)(1) (“A person who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review”) (emphasis added). Affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacque Bouvier Bennett
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jacque Bouvier Bennett, of aggravated rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and assault by offensive touching. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it found the victim competent to testify; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the victim’s mother to be present during the victim’s testimony; (3) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (4) the victim failed to identify the Defendant at trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors undermined the Defendant’s right to a fair trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gholam Reza Safaeih v. Reza Alizadegan
The parties entered into an agreement in which the defendant provided funds and the |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Blake Shemar Swann
The defendant, Blake Shemar Swann, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals |