COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State of Tennessee v. Fred Wayne Putt, Jr.
M2025-01860-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Forest A. Durard, Jr.

A Moore County jury found the defendant, Fred Wayne Putt, Jr., guilty of being a convicted violent felon in possession of a firearm, simple possession of methamphetamine, possession of a legend drug without a prescription, a muffler violation, and a financial responsibility violation, for which he received a total effective sentence of thirteen years in confinement and a $325 fine. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted violent felon and that the trial court erred in failing to issue a requested jury instruction. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

State of Tennessee v. Javari Jackson-Allen
E2025-01150-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge G. Scott Green

A Knox County grand jury charged the Defendant, Javari Jackson-Allen, via presentment
with two counts of first degree felony murder and one count each of especially aggravated
robbery, first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree premeditated murder, and
employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. At trial, the jury
convicted the Defendant of both counts of first degree felony murder as well as especially
aggravated robbery, the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide, and the
firearm charge but acquitted the Defendant of attempted first degree murder. Thereafter,
the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a felony murder
must be the “natural and probable consequence” of the target crime of fraud. After review,
we conclude that the Defendant waived all issues regarding the trial court’s failure to
instruct the jury on the “natural and probable consequences” portion of the criminal
responsibility instruction, and we decline to conduct plain error review. Therefore, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Kortney Dalon Ball
M2025-01458-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Khadija Lanice Babb

In 2021, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of aggravated assault by strangulation or attempted strangulation. At his 2024 trial, the trial court instructed the jury on the charged aggravated assault offense as well as the lesser included offenses of attempted aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, domestic assault, attempted domestic assault, and domestic assault by offensive contact. After deliberating, the jury acquitted the Defendant of aggravated assault by strangulation as well as the lesser-included offenses of attempted aggravated assault and reckless aggravated assault. However, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the domestic assault charge, and the trial court declared a mistrial. At the Defendant’s 2025 retrial, the jury convicted the Defendant of domestic assault. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) his conviction for domestic assault should be vacated and his indictment dismissed with prejudice because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that domestic assault was a lesser-included offense of the indicted aggravated assault offense; (2) the trial court violated his due process and confrontation rights when it denied him access to the transcript from his first trial, when it restricted his cross-examination of the victim, and when it failed to declare a mistrial in response to the victim’s testimony that the Defendant had “a history of selling [drugs]”; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting unauthenticated photographs of the victim’s alleged injuries; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence and in setting a restrictive appeal bond and bond conditions following the appellate court’s intervention; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors requires relief. After review, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction for domestic assault, vacate the judgment, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

State of Tennessee v. Chase Lyndal Harrison
M2025-01455-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Bateman

In two separate indictments, the Defendant, Chase Lyndal Harrison, pleaded guilty to mitigated statutory rape and to possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver a Schedule VI drug (marijuana) over half an ounce. The trial court placed the Defendant on judicial diversion for a total of four years for the two convictions. The Defendant’s probation officers filed multiple probation violation reports, and the trial court issued multiple warrants for the Defendant. After a hearing, the court found the Defendant violated the terms of his probation, and it revoked judicial diversion. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of four years, one of which was to be served in confinement followed by three years of probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

State of Tennessee v. Alexander Carino
E2026-00300-CCA-R3-ECN
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wesley Thomas Bray

The Petitioner, Alexander Carino, appeals the coram nobis court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis based upon newly discovered evidence as being time-barred. On appeal, we affirm the coram nobiscourt’s summary dismissal of the petition as being time-barred.

State of Tennessee v. Allan Partin
E2025-01031-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge David R. Duggan

The Defendant, Allan Partin, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence for aggravated burglary, domestic assault, and attempted kidnapping and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly apply the two-step process required for revocation of his community corrections sentence. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings regarding its consequence determination, leaving the record inadequately developed for meaningful appellate review. The State responds that the trial court made the requisite findings before exercising its discretion to order the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. We agree with the Defendant that the trial court failed to articulate its findings concerning the consequence imposed for the revocation. However, upon our de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and conclude that full revocation of his community corrections sentence was proper.

State of Tennessee v. Daekwon Kaderius Dodd
E2026-00606-CCA-R10-CD
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: Judges Greenholtz, Montgomery, Jr. and Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gass

The State of Tennessee has filed an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant
to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10, seeking review of the trial court’s
November 19, 2025 bench ruling granting the Defendant’s request for a jury trial on the
issue of his competency to stand trial. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-7-301(b)(2). The State
asserts that immediate review is warranted because the ruling departs from the accepted
and usual course of judicial proceedings and because, absent review, the State may lose
a right or interest that cannot later be recaptured. See Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a); Gilbert v.
Wessels, 458 S.W.3d 895, 898 (Tenn. 2014).

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD CLARENCE LAWHORN
E2026-01056-CCA-R10-CD
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: JUDGE ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR. JUDGE STEVEN W. SWORD JUDGE STACY L. STREET
Trial Court Judge: Judge Scott G. Green

The pro se Petitioner has filed an application for extraordinary appeal, see Tenn. R.
App. P. 10, seeking review of two trial court orders: (1) the April 10, 2026 order
adjudicating the Petitioner’s motion seeking return of seized property pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) and (2) the May 27, 2026 order denying the
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Petitioner asserts that “the lower court has so
far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings so as to require
immediate review,” Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a) because the April 10, 2026 order incorporated
an inventory document, with which the Petitioner disagrees, and the trial court denied
reconsideration of that order.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JULIUS GIONNI GODBOLT-ROSERIE
E2026-00962-CCA-R10-CD
Dispositive Order
Authoring Judge: JUDGE STACY L. STREET JUDGE ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR. JUDGE TOM GREENHOLTZ
Trial Court Judge: Judge Zachary R. Walden

The pro se Defendant, Julius Gionni Godbolt-Roserie, has filed an application for
extraordinary review of the trial court’s May 27, 2026 order dismissing a probation
violation warrant. Upon review of the Defendant’s application and applicable law, we have
determined that a response from the State is not necessary. Upon full consideration, the
Defendant’s application is DENIED.

State of Tennessee v. Christian Pitts
W2025-00917-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Paula L. Skahan

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Christian Pitts, of second degree murder and of being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and challenges the trial court’s self defense instruction that included the “duty to retreat” language. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

State of Tennessee v. Felix Tate, III
W2025-01071-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Stacy L. Street
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carlyn L. Addison

The Defendant, Felix Tate, III, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions
of attempted first degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of a
dangerous felony. The Defendant received an effective thirty-one-year sentence. On
appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Joe Jackson v. State of Tennessee
W2025-01075-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Mark Ward

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joe Jackson, of aggravated assault and
reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced him to fourteen years. The Petitioner
appealed. This Court affirmed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief,
which the post-conviction court dismissed for failure to prosecute, and this Court reversed
and remanded for further post-conviction proceedings. On remand, the post-conviction
court recused itself, a new judge was assigned, and the new judge appointed counsel, who
filed an amended petition that alleged that the Petitioner had received the ineffective
assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The
Petitioner now appeals. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective
assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Earl Murphy
W2025-01577-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Brent Bradberry

The Defendant, Kenneth Earl Murphy, appeals his Hardin County Circuit Court
convictions of rape of a child and incest, for which he received an effective sentence of
thirty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the
convicting evidence and argues that the trial court committed plain error by 1) failing to
issue a curative instruction following his testimony regarding a polygraph test; 2)
permitting the introduction of the indictment while simultaneously instructing the jury not
to consider it as evidence; 3) instructing the jury that an admission against interest had been
raised by the proof; and 4) permitting the introduction of irrelevant and prejudicial
character evidence. The Defendant also asserts that the cumulative effect of the errors in
this case entitles him to a new trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Susan Escobar
W2025-01524-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mark L. Hayes

While serving a probated sentence, the Defendant, Susan Escobar, was arrested and
charged with one count of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, creating a risk
of death or serious bodily injury. The Defendant entered a best interest guilty plea and,
following a combined probation revocation and sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked
her probation in full and imposed a sentence of seven years’ incarceration. On appeal, the
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing her sentence because it failed to
place sufficient findings on the record regarding the applicable enhancement factors.
Discerning no error, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Wiley Vanover
E2025-01431-CA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Goodwin, Jr.

The Defendant, Wiley Vanover, pled guilty to multiple offenses in two cases. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation, and the trial court revoked the suspended sentence in part and ordered him to serve five of the six years in custody. On appeal, the Defendant admits that he violated his probation conditions but asserts that the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction, such as reinstatement to probation or split confinement. Upon our review, we conclude that the record does not contain the findings necessary for this court to conduct meaningful appellate review of the consequence determination as required by State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Accordingly, we respectfully vacate the revocation orders and remand the case to the trial court for further findings regarding the appropriate consequence for the violations.

State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Cantrell
E2025-00887-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword

Defendant, Jeffery Cantrell, appeals his Knox County convictions for aggravated sexual battery and sexual exploitation of a minor via electronic means, for which he is serving an effective ten-year sentence. Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of pornography found on his cell phone; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred by not granting Defendant’s request for a judgment of acquittal on Count 2of the presentment after the State’s case-in-chief. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Amanda Hurst
E2025-00736-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hector Sanchez

The Defendant, Wiley Vanover, pled guilty to multiple offenses in two cases. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation, and the trial court revoked the suspended sentence in part and ordered him to serve five of the six years in custody. On appeal, the Defendant admits that he violated his probation conditions but asserts that the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction, such as reinstatement to probation or split confinement. Upon our review, we conclude that the record does not contain the findings necessary for this court to conduct meaningful appellate review of the consequence determination as required by State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Accordingly, we respectfully vacate the revocation orders and remand the case to the trial court for further findings regarding the appropriate consequence for the violations.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. AMANDA MARIE HURST
E2025-00736-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hector Sanchez

The Defendant, Amanda Hurst, entered a guilty plea to child abuse with the trial court to
determine sentencing. The trial court held a hearing and sentenced the Defendant to two
years in confinement. The trial court denied the Defendant’s requests for judicial diversion
and probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it denied
judicial diversion and probation. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Demarcus Keyon Cole v. Julian Wiser, Sheriff
W2025-01673-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kyle C. Atkins

The Petitioner, Demarcus Keyon Cole, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
Circuit Court for Madison County, which the habeas corpus court summarily dismissed as
deficient. The Petitioner argues on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred by failing to
appoint counsel and failing to allow him to amend the petition. Because he was not entitled
to the appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing on his deficient petition, the habeas
corpus court did not err in summarily dismissing it. We affirm.

Donald Ragland, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
W2025-01749-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Stacy L. Street
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Jones, Jr.

The Petitioner, Donald Ragland, Jr., appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s
summary dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his
judgment is void based on alleged deficiencies in the arrest warrant and affidavit of
complaint underlying his convictions. We conclude that the Petitioner’s brief does not
comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a), but that,
notwithstanding waiver, the habeas corpus court did not err by summarily dismissing the
petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

State of Tennessee v. Jorge Alberto Garcia
M2025-00980-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Deana C. Hood

A Williamson County jury convicted Defendant, Jorge Alberto Garcia, of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, eight counts of rape of a child, and two counts of solicitation to commit rape of a child. The trial court imposed an effective sixty-two-year sentence with sex offender registration and community supervision for life. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his confession was involuntary and the detective failed to obtain a valid waiver of his Miranda rights. Additionally, Defendant argues that the erroneous admission of his confession was not harmless error. After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs and arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand for clarification of the trial court’s sentencing order and any resulting corrections of the judgment forms.

State of Tennessee v. Kevin Michael Brown
M2025-01124-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

Defendant, Kevin Michael Brown, appeals his convictions for seven counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, seven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of unlawful photography and his effective sentence of nineteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor; (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s visiting adult pornographic websites and downloading adult pornography pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the admission of the evidence, when considered individually and cumulatively, was reversible error; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Terrance Terrell Howard
W2025-01089-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

The Defendant, Terrance Terrell Howard, was convicted by a Chester County jury of attempted first degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years’ incarceration, as a Range I, standard offender, with no release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted first degree murder and that his twenty-four-year sentence for that convictionis excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Terrance Wilks v. State of Tennessee
W2025-01504-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris Craft

The Petitioner, Terrance Wilks, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction
relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Erik Courtney Lehto v. State of Tennessee
E2025-01526-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hector Sanchez

The Petitioner, Erik Courtney Lehto, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of
post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of rape of a child, one count of
aggravated sexual battery, and one count of solicitation of rape of a child. The Petitioner
alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on four asserted grounds:
(1) trial counsel failed to ask key credibility-related questions during the Petitioner’s direct
examination regarding household tension between him and the minor victim; (2) trial
counsel failed to cross-examine the minor victim about other men in her environment who,
according to the Petitioner, could have provided alternative explanations or suspects; (3)
trial counsel erred by stipulating to evidence describing the Petitioner’s arrest near the U.S.-
Mexico border, which suggested flight and implied consciousness of guilt; and (4) the
cumulative effect of these alleged deficiencies deprived him of a fair trial.1 Upon our
review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.