State of Tennessee v. Jarett Wilson
Defendant, Jarett Wilson, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a violation of probation warrant and subsequent probation revocation. Defendant contends he was denied the right to a speedy trial and the trial court should have dismissed the probation violation warrant; the trial court failed to place adequate findings on the record to support its decision to revoke Defendant’s probation; and one of Defendant’s sentences had expired prior to the revocation and should be removed from the revocation order. After a review, we determine that Defendant’s sentence in case number 18-640 had already expired and was not subject to revocation. Accordingly, we vacate the revocation order in that case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in case number 18 727, but because the trial court made insufficient findings as to its consequence determination, we remand for further findings. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Krag McAllister
The Defendant, Brian Krag McAllister, was convicted in the Campbell County Criminal |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clifton Cox
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Clifton Cox, of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received a sentence of sixty-five years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. The defendant also contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to bifurcate, in allowing the State to introduce evidence of a recovered handgun, in preventing the defendant from cross examining the victim about a prior conviction, and in imposing an excessive sentence. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand the case for a corrected judgment form in count one. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Courtney Shane
This is a probation violation matter wherein Defendant, James Courtney Shane, appeals both the determination of a violation and the determination of a full revocation consequence. In April 2025, Defendant pled guilty to one count of abuse of an elderly or vulnerable adult and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective eight-year sentence and placed Defendant on supervised probation. Within two months Defendant was arrested on a new felony charge. The trial court subsequently revoked Defendant’s probation in full and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the probation violation warrant was invalid because the corresponding affidavit contained procedural errors, (2)the trial court erred by admitting a TBI lab report without making the proper hearsay findings of good cause and reliability, and (3) the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings in its consequence determination pursuant to State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Defendant waived his first issue during oral argument. After review, we conclude the admission of the TBI lab report was error, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We also conclude the record is not sufficiently developed for this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the consequence determination. We, therefore, vacate the revocation orders and remand the case to the trial court for further findings. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Samuel Ward, Jr.
In this case involving an issue of first impression pertaining to the exclusion of evidence of a victim’s biological sex, Defendant, Samuel Ward, Jr., was convicted by a Shelby County jury of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced Defendant to six years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues 1) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s assigned sex at birth; 2) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction; 3) it was plain error for the State to make improper comments during its closing argument; 4) the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to impeach a State’s witness; and 5) the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence of incarceration and denying an alternative sentence. Becausewe conclude that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to exclude evidence of the victim’s biological sex, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas N. Allen v. State of Tennessee
A Hamblen County jury convicted the Petitioner, Thomas N. Allen, of premeditated first |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Manning
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Tony Manning, of one count of aggravated |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Earl Lee Shaffer
A Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant, Earl Lee Shaffer, of rape. At sentencing, |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Webster Russell
Defendant, Ernest Russell, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of theft of a firearm valued at less than $2,500 and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Wesley McElhiney
The defendant, John Wesley McElhiney, pled nolo contendere to one count each of aggravated burglary, burglary of an automobile, and attempted aggravated burglary. As a condition of his plea, the parties agreed that the defendant would receive an effective sentence of ten years or less as a Range III offender with the length of each sentence and manner of the service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective ten years’ confinement with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Russell
Defendant, Ernest Russell, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of theft of a firearm valued at less than $2,500and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, for which he received an effective sentence ofthirty years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wiltha Brown
The Defendant, Wiltha Brown, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jared Payton
Jared Payton, Defendant, was serving a sixteen-year sentence on supervised probation when he appeared before the trial court on his second probation revocation hearing. The probation warrant alleged a “Graduated Zero Tolerance Violation,” specifically that Defendant failed to consistently comply with his sex offender treatment program. After a hearing, the trial court fully revoked Defendant’s probation. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial relied on an out-of-court statement without making the proper findings,(2) the trial court abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily in revoking Defendant’s probation in full, and (3) his original sixteen-year probationary sentence was illegal and should be remedied pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ryan Kelley McElrath
The Defendant, Ryan Kelley McElrath, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court in case number 24-874 to three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, a Class B felony, and two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent terms of nine years for each statutory rape by an authority figure conviction and concurrent terms of three years for each sexual battery by an authority figure conviction and ordered that the effective three-year sentence be served consecutively to the effective nine-year sentence, for a total effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in applying the particularly-vulnerable-victim enhancement factor and in ordering consecutive sentences. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Saidrick Pewitte
The Defendant, Saidrick Pewitte, requestspermission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. He seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence.The State opposes the application. Upon review, the Court hereby denies the application for the reasons stated below. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul J. Springer, Sr.
The Defendant, Paul J. Springer, Sr., seeks a stay of execution of judgment and an extraordinary appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 7 and 10. He is pro se. For context, the Court recounts the following procedural history of this matter. The Defendant was previously charged with two counts of forgery in an amount of $60,000 or more but less than $250,000. State v. Springer, No. W2024-00849-CCA-R3-CD, 2025 WL 1939151 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 15, 2025). The jury trial on those charges ended in a mistrial. Id. However, during trial, the Defendant was twice held in direct contempt of court. Id. The trial court imposed consecutive ten-day sentences to serve in jail. Id. The judgments were filed in October 2019. Id. In August 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the contempt charges under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42. Id. The trial court denied that motion in May 2024. Id. The Defendant, by and though appointed counsel, appealed. Id. This Court dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction on July 15, 2025. Id. Appointed counsel was subsequently allowed to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14. The Defendant did not file an application for permission to appeal, and mandate issued on September 17, 2025. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Verchaunt Joshua Williams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Verchaunt Joshua Williams, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for the writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, he contends that he is entitled to relief on the merits of numerous claims related to his conviction proceedings and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to recuse the court due to an alleged conflict of interests. The State contends, in response, that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely, that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for recusal, and that the court did not err in dismissing the petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lathan Word
The Defendant, Lathan Word, appeals the trial court’s holding him in contempt, arguing primarily that the trial court’s summary contempt finding violated his right to due process, that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s contempt finding, and that the “cumulative circumstances” require that we vacate the contempt finding. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Stephen Baucom, Jr.
The Defendant, Michael Stephen Baucom, Jr., pleaded guilty to multiple counts stemming from a series of burglaries under four different indictments. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender for his conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based on his two prior felony convictions, one of which was a 2015 conviction for theft of property valued over $1,000, a Class D felony at the time. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it sentenced him as a Range II offender because, in 2022 when he was sentenced, the theft for which he had been convicted was reclassified to a Class E felony, which would not be an appropriate basis upon which to classify him as a Range II offender. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Scott Whitehurst
A Sumner County jury convicted the defendant, Brandon Scott Whitehurst, of sexual battery and aggravated statutory rape. The trial court merged the defendant’s two convictions and sentenced the defendant to a term of eight years in confinement at 100%. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of unrelated sexual conduct and in prematurely sustaining a Rule 412 objection. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court; however, we remand the matter for imposition of a sentence for Count 1, sexual battery. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobbie Jean Delk
Bobbie Jean Delk, Defendant, was indicted for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, and domestic assault. Prior to trial, the State dismissed the domestic assault charge. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser-included offenses of reckless endangerment and aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery as charged. As a result of the convictions, she was sentenced to an effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions for aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated robbery. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darius Artamus Smith
Following a trial, a Knox County jury found Defendant, Darius Artamus Smith, guilty of |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Quantavious Williams v. State of Tennessee
A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Quantavious Williams, of first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, carjacking, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment, and this court affirmed the judgments on direct appeal. The Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court denied his petition following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner raises the following issues: (1) whether trial counsel’s conduct amounted to a constructive denial of counsel warranting a presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic; (2) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance under the conventional Strickland v. Washington framework by failing to object to, or otherwise challenge, the State’s gang-related evidence; (3) whether trial counsel’s personal and professional conduct amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland; and (4) whether the post-conviction court erred by failing to make an explicit finding on his claim of cumulative error. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan Andres Rodriguez Torres
Defendant, Juan Andres Rodriguez Torres, appeals the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and alternative sentencing following his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell A. Grady
Defendant, Darrell A. Grady, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony, and the trial court imposed a Range II, twelve-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction based on the facts and based on the trial court’s error in its instructions to the jury. He also claims the trial court’s denial of a community corrections sentence was erroneous and violated the federal and state constitutions against cruel and unusual punishment. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS
Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.