Opinions
State of Tennessee ex rel. Kenneth Dale Davenport v. Frank Strada, ex officio as Commissioner et al.
An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction petitioned for a writ of mandamus. On its own motion, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Demetrius Adkisson a/k/a Antonio Demetrius Turner Jr.
Seventeen-year-old Antonio Demetrius Adkisson (a.k.a. Antonio Demetrius Turner, Jr.) (“the Defendant”) was charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the fatal shooting of two victims. The Gibson County Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) held a transfer hearing and found it appropriate to transfer the Defendant to the Gibson County Circuit Court (“the trial court”) to be prosecuted as an adult. After a jury trial, during which the Defendant’s videotaped statements were admitted into evidence, the Defendant was convicted of two counts of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. See State v. Adkisson, No. W2022-01009-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 1252173 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2024). The Defendant requested permission to appeal to this Court, alleging (1) the juvenile court lacked probable cause to believe he committed the charged offenses, as required for transfer by Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-134(a)(4)(A), and (2) the trial court erred in admitting his confession at trial because he did not validly waive his right to remain silent and his confession was involuntary. We hold that the Defendant was properly transferred to the trial court. We further hold that the Defendant validly waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but his confession was unlawfully coerced in violation of the Due Process Clause and thus inadmissible at trial. Having found reversible error on that basis, we vacate the Defendant’s convictions of second-degree murder and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Gibson | Supreme Court | |
Terra Lynn Thompson v. Justin Claude Thompson
Husband and Wife divorced. In ruling upon contested matters, the trial court awarded Wife transitional alimony and alimony in futuro as well as attorney’s fees. Husband appealed. He argues the trial court’s award of alimony was error because the court miscalculated his income, because it errantly excluded certain evidence, and because it awarded the wrong type of alimony. He also argues that Wife’s attorney’s fees affidavit was insufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Jayson Reeners
This matter is before the Court upon the pro se petition of the Defendant, Patrick Jayson Reeners, for an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying the pro se motion to recuse herself. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 1. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth C. Davis
The Defendant, Kenneth C. Davis, was convicted by a jury of burglary of a building other than a habitation and received a twelve-year sentence. The Defendant died while his motion for new trial was still pending, which prompted the Defendant’s counsel to file a motion to dismiss on the Defendant’s behalf, arguing that the common law doctrine of abatement ab initio should act to abate the Defendant’s entire case from the inception of the prosecution. The trial court denied the motion, relying on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Al Mutory, 581 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2019). The Defendant’s counsel filed an appeal from that decision pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On appeal, the Defendant’s counsel contends that the trial court erred by relying on Al Mutory and declining to apply the doctrine of abatement ab initio under these circumstances. Following supplemental briefing, we conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 3 to review the issue as presented. Further, we decline to extend the extraordinary judicial remedy of a writ of certiorari. The appeal is dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bernard Adrian Smith, a/k/a Adrian Smith a/k/a Adrianne Smith
The Defendant, Bernard Adrian Smith, a/k/a Adrian Smith, a/k/a Adrianne Smith, was convicted of attempted first degree murder and aggravated domestic assault following a bench trial. The Defendant represented himself at these proceedings, although he was appointed an attorney as “counsel to assist,” also known as “standby counsel.” On appeal, the Defendant contends, inter alia, that he did not ask to represent himself, even with the aid of standby counsel, and that the trial court improperly required him to do so against his expressed wishes. After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the Defendant that he was denied his right to counsel. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE MICHAEL S.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Roderick Darnell Stafford
Defendant, Roderick Darnell Stafford, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Counts 1 and 2, one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony drug offense in Count 3, and one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Count 4. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged in Counts 2 and 3, with the trial court to determine the length, manner, and alignment of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to four years’ confinement for Count 2 and five years’ confinement for Count 3, ordering the sentences to run consecutively for an effective sentence of nine years’ confinement. The remaining counts were dismissed. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) imposing enhanced sentences, (2) ordering consecutive alignment of his sentences, and (3) ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. After review, we remand the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment forms for Counts 1 and 4. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Laquala Malone
The Defendant, Laquala Malone, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyle Baptiste
The Defendant, Kyle Baptiste, appeals his Hardeman County Circuit Court conviction of |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nakeavious Milan
The Defendant, Nakeavious Milan, entered a guilty plea to one count of voluntary |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cortez Gore
The pro se Defendant has filed an application seeking an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation. Upon preliminary consideration, we determine that the application is procedurally insufficient for this court’s review. Therefore, the State need not file an answer to the application. The Defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal is DENIED |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
BRITTANY WILSON (HAMILTON) v. JEFFERY D. WILSON
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re The Carl Edwin Osborne, Jr. Living Trust, dated May 19, 2020
The decedent left a will in which he directed the majority of his property into a trust. The |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Michael S.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported two grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to financially support the child. The trial court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. After thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s determination relative to the ground of abandonment by failure to support. However, the evidence did not support a finding of abandonment by failure to visit, and we reverse the trial court’s determination as to that ground. We vacate, for insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the child’s best interest and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a thorough analysis of the best interest factors found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i). |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Carl Edwin Osborne, Jr. Living Trust -Concur in Part/Dissent in Part
The majority opinion offers a thoughtful examination of the issues before this court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Brittany Wilson (Hamilton) v. Jeffery D. Wilson
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. |
Court of Appeals | ||
IN RE SYLIS K., ET AL.
This appeal involves a grandmother and grandfather’s petition to terminate the parental |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Martin v. Natasha Barrett et al.
The plaintiff in this action sought to collaterally attack a child support judgment and raised allegations of constitutional and other violations of law by several named defendants, including Child Support Services, the plaintiff’s former spouse, and the State of Tennessee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, determining, inter alia, that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Waggoner v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kevin Waggoner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing (1) the trial court participated in an ex parte jury proceeding which violated hisright to an impartial jury; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to attend the jury proceeding at the local high school; (3) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to remove a juror who admittedduring trial that she knew one of the State’s witnesses; (4) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to request a subpoena duces tecum for a single record from a juror’s Facebook record; (5) the post-conviction court erred in denying a subpoena duces tecum for the juror’s Facebookaccount; and (6) the cumulative errors undermine confidence in the verdict. 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. |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Hudgins v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Hudgins, was convicted in 2014 of first degree murder. State v. Hudgins, No. E2015-01363-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 4413281, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2016), perm. app. denied(Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that Petitioner’s mother told multiple people she drugged him with Xanax on the day of the shooting.Hudgins v. State, No. E2019-02173-CCA-R3-PC, 2020 WL 7589670, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2020), perm. app. denied(Tenn. Apr. 7, 2021). Petitioner was unsuccessful in pursuingpost-conviction relief. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that newly discovered evidence existed to show that his mother drugged him on the night of the shooting. In a supplement to the petition, Petitioner acknowledged the petition was untimely but claimed that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. After a hearing, the coram nobis court issued an order denying the petition. Petitioner appealed. After a review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Anthony Caleb Wise v. Lindsay Marie Snapp Wise
A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason O. Miller
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Jason O. Miller, of aggravated assault |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE ISAIAH M
Petitioner seeks accelerated review of the denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Brian Poe
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Jeremy Brian Poe, of one count of theft of property greater than $10,000, but less than $60,000. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain hisconviction, and the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III offender. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.However, following ourreview of the defendant’s sentence, we conclude the trial court erred in its application ofTennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-107(b)and in finding the defendant to be a Range III, persistent offender. Accordingly, the defendant’s Range III sentence requires reversal, and we remand this matter for resentencing. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |