APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellants purchased a home without first personally viewing the property. Following the sale, Appellants discovered defects that they claim should have been disclosed to them prior to the sale. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the sellers of the house and the licensed home inspector. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this case involving the sale of a life insurance policy, the trial court conducted a hearing on the same day regarding the four defendants’ various motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.  The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Concerning three defendants, including the appellant, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability upon finding that those defendants had failed to respond to the summary judgment motion.  Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court found that the defendants had breached an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the life insurance policy directly to the plaintiffs, selling it to a separate trust instead, and that the defendants had done so through a “scheme to defraud” the plaintiffs.  Upon the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the trial court also found that the defendants had violated the Tennessee Viatical Settlement Act of 2009, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-50-101, et seq.  Finding the defendants to be jointly and severally liable, the trial court awarded to the plaintiffs a judgment in the amount of $418,450.87 plus attorney’s fees in the amount of $252,867.19.  One of the defendants has appealed.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment with the correction of one mathematical error.  Pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement, we grant the plaintiffs’ request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.  We remand this case to the trial court for enforcement of the modified judgment and for a determination of the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.  

The Appellant, Kortney Dalon Ball, is appealing his conviction and the sentence he
received for one count of misdemeanor domestic assault. Although he was represented by
appointed counsel at the time notice of appeal was filed, he has since been permitted
permission to proceed on his own in this appeal. The record has not yet been filed.

The Appellant, Kortney Dalon Ball, is appealing his conviction and the sentence he
received for one count of domestic assault. See Docket No. M2025-01458-CCA-R3-CD.
Although he was represented by appointed counsel at the time notice of appeal was filed
in Docket No. M2025-01458-CCA-R3-CD, he has since been permitted permission to
proceed on his own in that appeal. The record has not yet been filed therein.

The petitioner, Timothy Aaron Baxter, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his pro se motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Stanton, of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and domestic assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal upon conclusion of the State’s case. He also asserts that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping cannot stand because the victim’s confinement was merely incidental to the accompanying assault under State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur in the majority’s conclusions that the trial court did not err in denying the
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and in classifying him as a career offender. I write
separately to address my departure from the majority’s analysis on the standard of review
to be employed for the sentencing range determination issue.

Defendant, Rebecca M. Davis, appeals her convictions for one count of aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, one count of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, and two counts of aggravated child endangerment of child eight years of age or less. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant received an effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying her motion for judgments of acquittal for aggravated child endangerment and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less; (2) the trial court erred by not merging her convictions for aggravated child endangerment with her respective convictions for aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less; and (3) the trial court violated her due process rights by allowing the State to comment on and elicit testimony regarding her pre-arrest, post-Miranda silence. After review, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal for her aggravated child neglect conviction but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jordan Harp, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. Petitioner was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. Pursuant to a March 2022 negotiated plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of second degree murder and to especially aggravated kidnapping and received an effective sentence of forty years.1 Petitioner timely sought post-conviction relief, alleging several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After only hearing from Petitioner’s trial counsel, the post-conviction court stated, “I don’t need to hear anything from [Petitioner],” and denied Petitioner the opportunity to testify and present witnesses. The post-conviction court then denied relief. Because we conclude that Petitioner was not afforded a full and fair hearing on his post-conviction petition, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for a new hearing on his post-conviction petition.

The Defendant, Dallas Wayne Tomes, Jr., was convicted in the Criminal Court of Bradley
County of five counts of burglary of a building other than a habitation, two counts of theft
of property valued at more than $1000 but less than $2500, and one count of theft of
property valued at $1000 or less. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss his charges pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers (“IAD”) and its classification of him as a career offender, arguing that the trial
court failed to conduct a foreign judgments test prior to sentencing. Discerning no error,
we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Defendant, Tyler David Mashburn, entered an open plea of guilt to one count of aggravated assault with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of the sentence. Prior to the sentencing hearing, Defendant requested judicial diversion and submitted a certificate of eligibility. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied diversion and imposed a five-year sentence of split confinement, with nine months to serve and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive and the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Sade Janae Burrow, appeals from the partial consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court upon resentencing following the revocation of her community corrections supervision, increasing her effective sentence from ten to sixteen years. She contends that the trial court erred by failing to weigh the relevant mitigating factors against applicable enhancement factors and abused its discretion by inappropriately imposing partial consecutive sentences as punishment for committing a violation of her original community corrections supervision. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Mitchell Stanley Pozezinski, Jr., was found guilty after a bench trial before the Montgomery County Circuit Court of two counts of violating the conditions of his community supervision for life by failing to comply with a polygraph assessment and by failing to complete a psychosexual evaluation. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-524 (Supp. 2002) (subsequently amended) (sentence of community supervision for life); 39-13-526 (2018) (violations of community supervision). On appeal, the Defendant asserts the p

Following an incident in an operating room allegedly involving aggressive actions by a doctor toward a scrub tech, the scrub tech made oral and written statements about the incident to her employer, the police, and a state administrative body. In response, the doctor filed suit for defamation and intentional interference with a business relationship. The scrub tech filed a Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA) petition to dismiss, which the trial court granted after it found that the statements were within the ambit of the TPPA and that the doctor could not establish a prima facie case for all of the essential elements of his claims. The doctor appeals. We affirm.

In this automobile collision case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant challenges several rulings related to the admission and testimony of the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert. Because the defendant failed to file a motion for new trial raising these challenges, we conclude that they are waived, and so we affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. We award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122.

The appellant has filed a notice of appeal as of right from interlocutory orders entered by the trial court.  Due to the lack of a final judgment, this Court does not maintain subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the portion of this Court’s prior order directing that the matter be scheduled for the next oral argument docket is vacated.