Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Richard Herron
Following a trial, a jury found Defendant, Matthew Richard Herron, guilty of felony |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
A.M. by Amanda M., et al. v. Carol Masek, et al.
The family of a child bitten by a dog appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit at the summary judgment stage. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant owners knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 44-8-413(c)(1). The plaintiffs argue that (1) the trial court committed reversible error when it granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without a hearing; and (2) they presented sufficient evidence to create a dispute of genuine material fact as to whether the defendant owners should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Vernon Johson a/k/a Robert Vernon Griffin
Defendant, Robert Vernon Johnson a/k/a Robert Vernon Griffin, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He received an effective sentence of thirty-one years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation for the firearm conviction and ordering consecutive sentences. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Enoch Zarceno Turner
The Defendant, Enoch Zarceno Turner, was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, aggravated child abuse, aggravated arson, and especially aggravated burglary, for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the State established the identity of the Defendant as the perpetrator of each of the offenses. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mikal B. Morrow
The Defendant, Mikal B. Morrow, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective six-year probationary sentence for aggravated assault by strangulation, false imprisonment, and interference with a 911 call. On appeal, he alleges that (1) the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the terms of his probation and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his probation after finding the Defendant had absconded. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE NEYRA S.
The Juvenile Court for Hamblen County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated the parental rights of Josue O. (“Father”) to his daughter Neyra S. (“the Child”), finding multiple grounds applicable to a putative father, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9), and the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Father does not contest the Juvenile Court’s findings of statutory grounds for termination but appeals the Juvenile Court’s determination that termination of his parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
James B. Johnson v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that James B. Johnson violated Rules 1.6, 1.16, and 8.4(a) and (d) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct when he publicly filed confidential communications between him and his client as an exhibit to a motion to withdraw. The panel suspended him from the practice of law for three months with thirty days as an active suspension and imposed additional continuing legal education requirements. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Donavan Daniel v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donavan Daniel, was convicted in the Weakley County Circuit Court of three counts of first degree felony murder, one count of first degree premeditated murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. After a bifurcated sentencing hearing, the jury sentenced him to life without parole for two counts of first degree felony murder, life for the remaining count of first degree felony murder, and life for first degree premeditated murder. This court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal and affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. After a hearing, the post-conviction court granted the motion to reopen, granted post-conviction relief, and reduced the Petitioner’s two sentences of life without parole to life. On appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred in applying State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2022), to the Petitioner’s sentences of life without parole and, therefore, erred in reducing the Petitioner’s sentences to life. We agree with the State. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed, and the Petitioner’s sentences of life without parole for first degree felony murder in counts three and four are reinstated. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse L. Kutrieb
In 2012, the Defendant, Jesse L. Kutrieb, pleaded guilty to two counts of vandalism of property valued at $500 or less, three counts of burglary other than a habitation, theft of property valued at $500 or less, and two counts of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of four years of supervised probation. The Defendant moved out of state without notifying his probation officer and was arrested and convicted of multiple offenses in Michigan. On this basis, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation because it did not rely on the facts set forth in the probation violation warrant, which only included absconding. After a thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aimee Lee Higby
In 2023, the Defendant, Aimee Lee Higby, entered a guilty plea to the facilitation of first degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and abuse of a corpse. By agreement, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her plea, which the trial court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE NATHANIEL D.
This is a parental rights termination case. Nathaniel D. (“the Child”) is the minor child of Haleigh D. (“Mother”) and Richard L. (“Father”). Mother later married Zachary D. (“Stepfather”). Meanwhile, Father sought to be a part of the Child’s life. In an agreed order of paternity, the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) stated that “any and all issues related to Custody, visitation, and child support are reserved and referred to the Custody Magistrate.” The issue of child support remained unaddressed. Ultimately, Mother and Stepfather (“Petitioners,” collectively) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights. The Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights on the sole ground of abandonment by failure to support. Father appeals. It is uncontested that Father failed to pay any support even though he had the means to do so. However, Father has successfully asserted and proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his failure to support was not willful. We reverse. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tammy Cothren Dabbs
Tammy Cothren Dabbs, Defendant, pleaded guilty to possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell, and the trial court sentenced her to eight years suspended to probation. The trial court subsequently issued a probation violation warrant and multiple amended warrants alleging violations of probation Rule 8 based upon Defendant’s multiple positive drug tests for amphetamine and methamphetamine. At an evidentiary hearing, Defendant admitted to violating the terms of her probation, and the trial court determined the consequences of the violation. Defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve the balance of her eight-year sentence. Following a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Vivian Thompson
This is an estate recovery action initiated by TennCare, the State of Tennessee’s Medicaid program. The trial court denied the estate’s administrator’s exception to TennCare’s claim. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE NATHANIEL D.
Although I agree that Father did sufficiently raise in his answer the affirmative defense of lack of willfulness regarding the statutory ground of failure to pay child support, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding and instead believe that Father’s failure to pay support was willful according to Tennessee law. As the majority points out, the proof was “undisputed that Father paid no child support during the relevant four-month period despite having the ability to pay.” Father argued that such failure was not willful because he had relied on the January 2021 agreed order of paternity entered by the juvenile court, which stated that “any and all issues related to . . . child support are reserved and referred to the Custody Magistrate,” and the fact that no further orders concerning child support had been entered. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Eugene Moon
Following a retrial, Defendant, William Eugene Moon, was convicted by a Coffee County jury of attempted second degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony and sentenced to an effective sixteen-year sentence to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter; that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a written request for the jury instruction before the jury began its deliberation; that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements; and that Defendant was denied a speedy trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Eugene Moon (Dissenting)
The majority opinion offers a thoughtful examination of this challenging case. I agree with much of the majority’s well-stated analysis, but there is a salient point of departure between the majority’s understanding and mine. This point of departure relates to whether admission into evidence of Mr. Moon’s post-shooting statements to Officer Wilder violates the protections afforded by Miranda. I conclude that it does, and, accordingly, respectfully dissent. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard E. Reed v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Richard E. Reed, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gulch, LLC v. Thomas Alexander Ford
A landlord filed a detainer action in general sessions court against a tenant, seeking possession of the property and unpaid rent. The tenant agreed to move out, and the rent obligation was later discharged by a third party. The tenant filed an appeal to circuit court, and the circuit court dismissed the case, finding that the tenant did not appeal within ten days of the general sessions court’s judgment. The tenant appealed. On appeal, the tenant, appearing pro se, does not address the basis of the circuit court’s dismissal of the case, an untimely appeal from general sessions court to circuit court. Because the tenant has not challenged the basis of the circuit court’s ruling, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bernard Woodard v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bernard Woodard, was convicted of burglary, theft of property valued at $2500 or more, and felony evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner, as a career offender, to an effective eighteen-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgments. State v. Woodard, No. M2020- 01538-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 5467384, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2021), no perm. app. filed. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging, among other claims, that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, this court reversed and concluded that the petition raised colorable claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. Woodard v. State, No. M2022-00162-CCA-R3-PC, 2022 WL 4932885, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2022), no perm. app. filed. On remand, the post-conviction court held a hearing and later issued an order denying relief. The Petitioner appeals, maintaining that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE ETHAN D.
In proceedings to terminate his parental rights, a father who lived out of state claimed that he was not served with process. The case went to trial based upon substitute service, and the father’s parental rights were terminated. Because we conclude that the father was not properly served, we vacate the judgment terminating his parental rights. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Keinesa Lillard v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Keinesa Lillard, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief challenging her convictions for attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, especially aggravated robbery, evading arrest by use of a motor vehicle involving risk of death or serious bodily injury to others, and four counts of simple possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on her claim that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to communicate with her regarding the State’s proof; (2) failing to review discovery materials with her; and (3) failing to discuss pretrial motions and strategy with her. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Patrick Stout
James Patrick Stout, Defendant, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 as well as the denial of his motion for recusal and motion for contempt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demarcus Keyon Cole v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the pro se Appellant’s petition for an accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, § 2. The Appellant asks this Court to review the trial court’s July 31, 2025 order denying his motion to recuse Judge Donald Allen. The State has filed a response in opposition to the petition. Having reviewed the petition, the supporting documents, and the State’s response, this Court has determined that additional briefing and oral argument are unnecessary. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.05, 2.06. The trial court’s order is hereby AFFIRMED. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Alan Ayotte
The defendant, Christopher Alan Ayotte, pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor with greater than one hundred images, two counts of rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered an effective sentence of one hundred and twenty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him. Upon review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form as to Count One of Case No. 2023-B-1260 reflecting the defendant's multiple offender status. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lacey Jones
The Defendant, Lacey Jones, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion1 to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 based on his claim that he was illegally sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |