Opinions
Gary Sutton v. State of Tennessee
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nikolaus L. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dallas Wayne Tomes, Jr.
The Defendant, Dallas Wayne Tomes, Jr., was convicted in the Criminal Court of Bradley |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Heather Piper DiDomenico v. James Andrew DiDomenico
Husband appeals the trial court’s judgment in his divorce action on the sole issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself because the judge’s comments and conduct at the trial establish that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Applying the objective standard, we find no basis for the trial judge’s recusal and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony S. Walker
The pro se Petitioner, Tony S. Walker, appeals the summary denial of his petition seeking various forms of relief from his first degree felony murder conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JERELL ANTHONY WILLIAMS
The Defendant has filed an application for interlocutory appeal, see Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 9, seeking review of the October 22, 2025 order permitting appointed counsel to withdraw from representation. Because the application is procedurally insufficient for this court’s review, an answer from the State is not necessary and the application is respectfully DENIED. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christian Deshawn Hyde
The Defendant, Christian Deshawn Hyde, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve the original three-year sentence for his aggravated assault conviction in confinement. The Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement and in failing to consider any other alternative to incarceration. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victor Curtell Scruggs
The Defendant, Victor Curtell Scruggs, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for the attempted first degree murder of his wife, the victim in this case. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to attempted second degree murder, with the length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentence and in ordering confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daversea Armen Fitts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Daversea Armen Fitts, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the amended post-conviction petition was not properly before the post-conviction court; however, the court retained jurisdiction over the original pro se petition. Additionally, we affirm the post-conviction court’s determination that the petitioner failed to meet the burden required of him and is not entitled to relief. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marina Georgopulos v. Zachary Ferrell
Father was held in criminal contempt for willful failure to provide Mother with the current address where he and their child resided. The court fined him $50 and sentenced him to serve 10 days incarcerated, though it suspended the incarceration upon good behavior and continued compliance with court orders. The trial court also granted Mother attorney’s fees related to the prosecution of that count of contempt. Father appeals. We affirm and remand for a determination of Mother’s attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Renee' Niter-Martin A/K/A Renee' Niter as Next of Kin of Rosie Niter v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals D/B/A Methodist University Hospital ET AL.
Appellee filed this action, as next of kin of Decedent, against Appellant nursing facility alleging that Appellant was negligent in its care of Decedent. Appellee also asserted a wrongful death claim. Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration on its allegation that Decedent signed a binding arbitration agreement before being admitted into its facility. The trial court found that Appellant failed to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement and concluded that there was no evidence of a binding arbitration agreement between Appellant and Decedent. As such, the trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Keigan S. et al.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to two of her three children. The juvenile court found that three grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
DAVID MARTIN, TRUSTEE OF THE JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST OF CLAUDE S. JERNIGAN AND JO ANN JERNIGAN v. TREVOR D. HILL
A grandmother made a series of loans to her grandson totaling $147,000 to help with his |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keelan Washington
Defendant, Keelan Washington, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for judicial diversion. Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set forth its reasons for denying diversion and by failing to comply with the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nina Nowaczyk et al. v. Timothy Daniels et al.
Appellants filed a motion to recuse the trial judge on the basis that the judge lives in the same neighborhood as a possible expert witness. The trial judge denied the motion. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Doryon Booth
The Defendant, Doryon Booth, appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original four-year sentence in confinement, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his probation and by failing to make adequate findings in support of its decision to revoke his suspended sentence. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Perkins v. State of Tennessee
Mario Perkins, Petitioner, appeals from the trial court’s denial of a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding because the “grounds alleged in the petition do not satisfy any of the criteria set out in Tenn[essee] Code Ann[otated section] 40-30-117 as ground to reopen, and have clearly been raised outside the statute of limitation[s]. . . .” Because the notice of appeal in this case fails to satisfy the requirements for an application for permission to appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-117(c), we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
FRENCH BROAD UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ET AL. V. HOLSTON ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL.
This appeal involves a dispute between a local church and a denominational organization regarding the ownership of church property. We have concluded that the trial court did not err in denying the local church’s motion to recuse and, further, that the trial court properly dismissed all of the local church’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
JUSTIN ROUSE v. EMILY SULLIVAN
A mother appealed a juvenile court’s modification of the permanent parenting plan for her daughter. Once briefing was complete and the case was submitted for decision, the mother voluntarily dismissed her appeal, leaving only the father’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). We grant the father’s request and remand for a determination of the amount of reasonable fees incurred. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damon Bridges
In 2021, the Defendant, Damon Bridges, pled guilty to multiple drug-related offenses, including several that were subject to enhanced penalties under the Drug-Free Zone Act. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years’ incarceration. In 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, asserting that later amendments to the Drug-Free Zone Act rendered his sentence unlawful. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s request for relief, and the Defendant appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioners, Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze, seek post-conviction relief from their respective convictions related to their infant son’s death in 2000 from abusive head trauma (“AHT”). The post-conviction court afforded the Petitioners an evidentiary hearing at which they presented purported “new scientific evidence” through various experts in an effort to establish their actual innocence. The State, through the Office of the District Attorney General for the Twentieth Judicial District (“District Attorney”), admitted the facts asserted by the Petitioners and agreed that the Petitioners were actually innocent of these offenses. Nonetheless, the post-conviction court determined that the Petitioners had failed to carry their burden of producing clear and convincing proof to establish their actual innocence, a determination which the Petitioners now challenge. On appeal, the State, through the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter (“Attorney General”), contends that the Petitioners failed to prove their actual innocence based on new scientific evidence, instead proffering only new opinions on previously presented evidence, which supports the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. In addition to the underlying substantive merits of their actual innocence claims, the Petitioners also raise certain procedural issues: (1) whether review of Mr. Maze’s appeal, which began as a motion to reopen his prior post-conviction petition, is permissive or an appeal as of right; (2) whether Mrs. Maze’s petition for post-conviction relief, her first, is time-barred; (3) whether the State improperly changed its position on appeal in violation of due process, judicial estoppel, and waiver; (4) whether the post-conviction court’s ruling infringed upon prosecutorial discretion and violated the party-presentation principle; (5) whether the post-conviction court erred by denying Mrs. Maze relief without independent review of her actual innocence claim; and (6) whether this case should be remanded to the post-conviction court for consideration of the original medical examiner’s recent recantation of his trial testimony, which has occurred during the pendency of this appeal. After review, we determine that a remand is unnecessary and affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. v. Regions Morgan Keegan Trust et al.
This appeal arises from the alleged mismanagement of two dissolved trusts established for the benefit of Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendant-trustees violated the trusts’ terms by regularly encroaching on the trusts’ corpus for unauthorized purposes, thereby exhausting the trusts’ assets. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the applicable statutes of limitations, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Pirtle d/b/a Third Coast Builders v. The Tunney Group, LLC et al.
A general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform plumbing work on a condominium construction project. After completing the first phase of the work, the general contractor paid a portion of the total contract amount to the subcontractor. The general contractor then separately hired the subcontractor to do some excavation work on the project, though no contract was created for this aspect of the work, and no payment amount was discussed. After completion of the excavation work, a dispute arose over the amount charged to the general contractor by the subcontractor. The general contractor refused to pay what it believed to be too high a fee. The subcontractor insisted that the amount charged was reasonable. The general contractor then asserted that the subcontractor had materially breached the plumbing contract during the first phase. The general contractor eventually terminated the contract. The subcontractor filed suit. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the general contractor breached the parties’ contract, awarding lost profits and attorney’s fees to the subcontractor pursuant to the plumbing contract. The trial court also awarded damages to the subcontractor for the excavation work under a quantum meruit theory. The general contractor appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze v. State of Tennessee (Concurring in part/Dissenting in part)
TOM GREENHOLTZ, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join the court in affirming the post-conviction court’s rulings based on the record that was properly before it at the time. Its analysis is both well-reasoned and persuasively stated. But I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny the motion for a limited remand—and thereby deny the post-conviction court the opportunity to consider how Dr. Bruce Levy’s affidavit bears on the findings it previously made Finality is a fundamental value in our system—but it is not the only one. When the State’s own chief medical examiner recants the very testimony that established the cause and manner of death, the effect is not just to raise new questions. If credited, it calls into doubt the foundation of the trial and the reliability of the post-conviction court’s findings, which relied on that same testimony. If a foundation is in question, it usually calls for an inspection of the ground. In my view, a limited remand answers that call. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacquiz McBee v. State of Tennessee
In 2017, the Petitioner, Jacquiz McBee, pled guilty to aggravated assault and was placed on judicial diversion for a period of three years. Following his later conviction for another crime in April 2022, the trial court rescinded the diversion, entered an adjudication of guilt, and sentenced the Defendant to serve a term of three years for the aggravated assault conviction. In 2024, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his aggravated assault case and that his original plea was invalid. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as being untimely, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we agree that the post-conviction petition was untimely and that principles of due process did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. We respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |