APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Crystal Lee Martin, entered an Alford or “best interest” plea to DUI on March 17, 2025, and her sentence was immediately executed as time served. On July 17, 2025, the Petitioner filed multiple post-conviction motions, including a “post-conviction relief packet,” which was related to her DUI offense, and also to a separate offense to which she had previously pleaded guilty, been given probation, and her ensuing probation violation convictions. The post-conviction court entered an order stating that the petition was not signed under oath subject to penalty of perjury and gave the Petitioner fifteen days to file an amended petition, and it denied all her other motions. The Petitioner filed a motion stating that her petition was, in fact, properly verified and indicating her refusal to file an amended petition. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Ronald Matthew Lacy was a luxury car middleman. In 2015, through a series of electronic communications sent from Kentucky, Lacy persuaded the owner of a car dealership in Tennessee to wire him funds for a Mercedes. But Lacy never delivered the Mercedes or returned the funds. In this appeal, we consider whether a Tennessee court had statutory territorial jurisdiction to convict Lacy of theft for that conduct. We conclude that it did. We further conclude that Lacy’s theft conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. We therefore uphold Lacy’s conviction and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals

The Petitioner, Jaylun Malik Currie, appeals from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and aggravated criminal trespass and his effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel’s alleged multiple instances of deficient performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jacque Bouvier Bennett, of aggravated rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and assault by offensive touching. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it found the victim competent to testify; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the victim’s mother to be present during the victim’s testimony; (3) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (4) the victim failed to identify the Defendant at trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors undermined the Defendant’s right to a fair trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The parties entered into an agreement in which the defendant provided funds and the
plaintiff used those funds to trade stocks. At one point, the defendant agreed to make a
$50,000 loan to the plaintiff so that the trading could continue. The agreement was
evidenced by a promissory note in which the plaintiff agreed to repay the loan and to share
any losses incurred. The loan was secured by a deed of trust executed on the plaintiff’s
residence. Subsequently, the parties lost approximately $210,342. The plaintiff then filed
a declaratory judgment action in which he claimed that the deed of trust was void because
the loan funds had never been disbursed. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim
alleging that the plaintiff owed him the balance of the loan plus interest. He also sought
reimbursement for a portion of the losses that the parties had incurred. The chancery court
determined that the defendant had never disbursed the loan funds. Accordingly, it held that
the deed of trust and the portion of the promissory note which required repayment of the
loan balance were void due to a lack of consideration. However, the chancery court also
held that the portion of the promissory note in which the plaintiff agreed to share losses
was effective and left the defendant entitled to damages. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The defendant, Blake Shemar Swann, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his
probation and ordering him to serve his six-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review
of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court conducted a two-day hearing regarding the mother’s petition to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the father moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The trial court granted the motion, determining that modification of the parenting plan was not warranted because the mother had not met her burden to prove that there had been a material change of circumstance affecting the minor child’s well-being. The trial court accordingly dismissed the mother’s petition with prejudice and awarded the father his reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We further determine that Father is entitled to his reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.

This appeal involves a mother and stepfather’s petition to terminate the parental rights of a father to his surviving child after the death of the parties’ other child. The petition alleged two grounds for termination of parental rights – abandonment by failure to support and severe child abuse. The chancery court found that neither ground had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also reviewed the statutory best interest factors and concluded that it was not in the best interest of the child for the father’s parental rights to be terminated. The mother and stepfather appeal. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract claim. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment after Appellant’s counsel failed to respond or otherwise appear to oppose the motion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

It is often said that “hard cases make bad law.” This case is more than hard — it is tragic. In circumstances such as these, which evoke strong emotions, this Court must resist the temptation to bypass the limits of our appellate review and re-try cases and re-evaluate facts to achieve what some deem to be a more just result. Unfortunately, in my view, the majority’s opinion does exactly this – essentially abrogating the role of the trial judge as a factfinder. Specifically, the majority opinion reverses the trial court’s determination that no grounds existed for termination, reverses the trial court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is not in Braxton’s (“the Child’s”) best interest, reverses factual findings made by the trial court, and even disregards credibility findings made by the trial court. I agree that clear and convincing evidence exists to establish abandonment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). The majority and I then choose different paths. Although I would reverse the trial court’s ruling as to abandonment, I would affirm in all other respects. In my view the majority ignores the presumption of correctness in the standard of review and does not give sufficient weight to the trial court’s credibility findings to travel the path they deem just. I do not agree that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact, nor that the aggregation of the individual facts amounts to clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest.

The petitioner, Charles Lane, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by
the Sevier County Circuit Court, arguing the habeas court erred in dismissing the petition.
The petitioner asserts that his pretrial jail credits were not applied properly and that his
request for transcripts was erroneously denied. Following our review, we affirm the habeas
court’s dismissal of the petition as the petitioner has failed to show he is entitled to relief.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, Parnell Quinn Short, of theft of property
valued between $1000 and $2500, a Class E felony and fixed a fine of $1750. The trial
court imposed the fine fixed by the jury and sentenced the Defendant, as a career offender,
to serve six years to run consecutively to the Defendant’s convictions in other cases. On
appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted three of his
prior convictions for impeachment purposes; and (2) imposed the fine set by the jury
without making the statutorily required findings. After review, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment but vacate the imposition of the fine. We remand the case for a sentencing
hearing with respect to the imposition of the fine.

The defendant, Timothy Sedman, pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery, and
the trial court imposed a sentence of six years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request
for alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the case for corrected
judgment forms in counts one through five and counts seven through twenty.

The Petitioner, Cedric Taylor, entered a guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine and resisting arrest, for which he received an effective sentence of fourteen years in confinement. The Petitioner sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to pursue a motion to suppress to challenge the constitutionality of the stop and subsequent search of his vehicle, and trial counsel’s failure to appeal his sentence. The Petitioner also claimed that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered due to trial counsel’s misleading advice that he would likely be sentenced to probation. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief, in part, and ordered a delayed appeal based on trial counsel’s failure to appeal the Petitioner’s sentence. This court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Petitioner’s request to serve his sentence on community corrections. See State v. Taylor, No. M2024-00192-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 3879116, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 20, 2024), appeal denied (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2024). The post-conviction court entered an order denying the issues that were held in abeyance, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court

The Defendant, Boone Beverly, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. On
appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the
Defendant’s request to allocute or speak on his own behalf at his revocation hearing.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Christopher Lance Osteen, entered a guilty plea to two counts of
aggravated kidnapping. As a part of his plea, and pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal
Procedure 37, the Defendant sought to reserve one certified question of law related to the
trial court’s finding that his right to a speedy trial did not attach when he was arrested in
Florida due to his escape status as well as being served with a warrant from Kentucky; one
certified question related to the trial court’s finding that the Defendant’s verbal request to
the Florida court to invoke his constitutional rights was insufficient to properly invoke his
rights to speedy trial and due process; and one certified question related to the trial court’s
finding that the Defendant’s written letters and motion to dismiss sent to both the general
sessions clerk and the district attorney’s office failed to properly invoke his constitutional
rights to a speedy trial and due process as it pertained to his Henry County, Tennessee
general session case arrest warrants. Because the Defendant did not properly reserve
certified issues for review, we are without jurisdiction to review the merits of the
Defendant’s claims, and we dismiss his appeal.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The wife primarily challenges the trial court’s decision to deny her alimony. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

The Defendant, Antonio D. Bennett Tate, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court
revocation of his community corrections sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that
the trial court erred by improperly admitting video footage from a police officer’s bodyworn
camera during the revocation hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a petition to terminate the parental rights of a father for the purposes of adoption. The petitioners, the child’s stepfather and mother, alleged that the father abandoned the child both by failing to visit and by failing to support. When father failed to participate in discovery, the petitioners moved for a default as a sanction. After granting the requested default and holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and that termination of father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the termination of parental rights.

This appeal presents issues relating to the probate court’s admission of a copy of a will for muniment of title. However, we do not reach the merits of the appeal due to Appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements outlined in Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a), and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

Defendant, Jerome Nchiyako Dooley, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery and received an agreed sentence of five years as a Range III offender, to be served on probation. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking probation based on a video Defendant posted to TikTok and that the court erred in failing to recuse itself sua sponte. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff filed an action in the Davidson County general sessions court to recover the balance of an unpaid loan from the defendant. An agreed final order was entered in favor of the plaintiff. Approximately six months later, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment based on an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated by the plaintiff. The general sessions court denied the motion. The defendant appealed the denial to the Davidson County circuit court. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The circuit court held that because the defendant had failed to file the motion to set aside within the ten-day statutory period outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-727(b), the general sessions court had correctly dismissed the motion as it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the judgment. Likewise, the circuit court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the merits as an appeal had not been timely filed. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

Shamone Davis, Defendant, was convicted of four counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, one count of attempted statutory rape by an authority figure, and three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure for events that involved his stepdaughter. As a result of the convictions, Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty years. Defendant appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, the trial court improperly admitted testimony of several witnesses, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for attempted statutory rape by an authority figure, and his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioners attempted to terminate the parental rights of the child’s biological father on the
grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support. The trial court found that neither
ground had been proven but proceeded to find that had grounds for termination been
proven, it would be in the child’s best interest for the biological father’s parental rights to
be terminated. Although we affirm the trial court’s finding that the biological father proved
that his failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s finding as to the ground
of abandonment by failure to support. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that
termination is in the child’s best interest.