Opinions
In Re James K.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the ground of persistent conditions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3). Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support this ground and the trial court’s determination that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, we affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffery D. Strong v. State of Tennessee
A Macon County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jeffery D. Strong, of selling dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III controlled substance. The Petitioner later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of the audio recording of the drug transaction; and (2) failing to raise the recording’s admission as an error in the motion for a new trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. In addition to his ineffective assistance claim, the Petitioner also contends on appeal that the post-conviction court erred by failing to resolve the question of pretrial jail credits owed to him. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Collin Kilpatrick
The Defendant, John Collin Kilpatrick, was convicted by a Lewis County Circuit Court jury of possession of drug paraphernalia and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of eight years at 85% release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding exculpatory information of addresses on file with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (“Board” or “Board of Probation and Parole”); that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct an in camera review of the Board’s records that were in the possession of the State, by denying the Defendant’s request for a special jury instruction on possession, and by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the State’s discovery violations; and that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wesley Allen Lacey
Wesley Allen Lacey, Defendant, was charged in a presentment by the Knox County Grand |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Ronald C. Perry
In this probate action, the executor of the decedent’s estate alleged that the defendant, who was the decedent’s wife, had exercised undue influence over the decedent. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding that the defendant did not have a confidential relationship with the decedent. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
STEVEN R. POWELL v. KNOXVILLE TVA EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B by the defendant below, Steven R. Powell, regarding his motion for recusal of the chancellor. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal, we determine it to be fatally deficient. We therefore dismiss the appeal |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
ETHAN BLACKBURN v. ALEXIS COOPER-HILL
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. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
EVA HAVLICEK ET AL. v. SEVIER COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, LLC ET AL.
Unhappy with a planning commission’s approval of a subdivision concept plan, a not-forprofit |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE AUDREY B.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on December 10, 2025. The notice of appeal |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. DeWayne Winslow
Defendant, Dewayne Winslow, was convicted by a Knox County jury of possession of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony, failure to carry vehicle registration, and unlawful possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective 17-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the narcotics and firearm found in his vehicle and by allowing the State to introduce Defendant’s prior drug conviction as evidence of intent. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlie M. Gardner
The Defendant, Charlie M. Gardner, was convicted in May 1999 by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of one count of first degree murder and two counts of reckless aggravated assault. State v. Gardner, No. M1999-02214-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 306227, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 1, 2001). The Defendant’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. Id. at *13. On March 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to correct clerical errors in his judgments of conviction, which the trial court granted on April 11, 2025. The Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on May 12, 2025, arguing it was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the entry of his corrected judgments. The trial court summarily dismissed the Defendant’s motion for a new trial as untimely. The Defendant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shervin Shahriari et al. v. Ikon Electric Services, Inc. et al.
A defendant appeals a judgment arising out of a dispute over residential electrical work. Because the defendant did not file his notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Appellate Court within thirty days after entry of the judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William P. Eblen
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cliesha D. Tedunjaye
The Defendant, Cliesha D. Tedunjaye, was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of driving under the influence (“DUI) and DUI per se, Class A misdemeanors; possessing a handgun while under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor; violating the open container law, a Class C misdemeanor; and failing to maintain her lane of travel, a Class C misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant received an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as forty-eight hours in jail and the remainder on probation supervised by community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions of DUI, DUI per se, and possession of a handgun while under the influence because the State failed to prove her intoxication. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel Forrester Hunter v. Winnie Sue Cooper
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, filed by Samuel Forrester Hunter (“Father”) seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Father, and finding no error, we affirm the denial of the recusal motion. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Wylie v. State of Tennessee
Andrew Wylie, Petitioner, filed a pro se petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus (“the Habeas Petition”), claiming that his sentence had expired and that he was being illegally restrained of his liberty due to the trial court’s refusal to award sentence credits for the time Petitioner served while on community corrections (“street credit”). The trial court summarily dismissed the Habeas Petition for failing to state a colorable claim. Because Petitioner failed to follow the mandatory procedural provisions of the habeas corpus statute, we affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of the Habeas Petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Christopher Pillow
Defendant, Timothy Christopher Pillow, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent felon, evading arrest with a motor vehicle, and identity theft. At sentencing, Defendant requested an alternative sentence under the Community Corrections Act. Instead, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ incarceration, finding that Defendant’s history of criminal conduct and the need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the current offenses warranted confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for community corrections. Following our review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert-Henry Butts IV v. Jacob Berti
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. We reverse. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amir Hassan Spears
The Defendant, Amir Hassan Spears, appeals from his convictions for first degree felony |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood
The Defendant, Wayne Morris Flood, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s probation revocation for his eight-year sentence for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 gram or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for the trial court to reinstate the Defendant to probation. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Remmia Radhakrishnan Sukapurath v. Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in Appellant’s petition, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood (Dissenting)
I write separately because I reach a different conclusion than the majority as to the appropriate response to the trial court’s deficiency. I agree that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings on the record regarding the grounds on which it found that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. However, I disagree that a de novo review of the record supports a conclusion that the Defendant committed a technical violation rather than absconding. I will endeavor to briefly explain my reasoning. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Alan Gordon v. Heather Elizabeth Gordon
Husband and Wife both sought a divorce, with each attributing fault to the other. During the divorce process, Wife alleged to the police, the Department of Children’s Services, and Husband’s military employer that Husband had abused her and their child. Husband denied the allegations and responded with a petition to hold Wife in criminal contempt for making false allegations of abuse. The contempt petition and the military investigation into Wife’s claims remained open at the time of Wife’s deposition. Wife refused, allegedly based on these open matters, to answer questions at her deposition, pleading the Fifth Amendment. The deposition was relocated to the courthouse, where the trial court held an impromptu hearing on the matter. During the hearing, the judge informed Wife that her refusal to answer questions could result in her being held in civil contempt. However, instead of holding Wife in civil contempt, with no warning, the trial court struck Wife’s pleadings and entered a default judgment. Addressing Husband’s pleadings and testimony thereupon, the trial court thereafter entered a final order dividing the parties’ property and fashioning a parenting plan. Wife appealed, arguing, among other things, that the sanctions of striking her pleadings and issuing a default judgment were improper. Because we conclude that Wife had insufficient notice, we vacate the trial court’s sanctions order and remand the case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Jones
The Defendant, Jarvis Jones, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that trial court failed to properly adhere to the two-step consideration for probation revocation and, as a result, abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant’s probation and that the record, considered as a whole, supports full revocation as the appropriate consequence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrin Numbers et al. v. Robert Snyder et al.
The plaintiffs in this case are two individuals who transferred a substantial amount of money to a business. After the business failed to repay the plaintiffs, they filed a lawsuit against the business and its owner, alleging various wrongdoings and seeking to pierce the corporate veil of the business. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs had proven all of their claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages against both the business and its owner. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court failed to apply the proper test for piercing the corporate veil and failed to provide sufficient clarity in its damages award. We, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals |