State of Tennessee v. David Edwin Kniejski
Defendant, David Edwin Kniejski, pleaded guilty toone count of aggravated assault and one count of simple assault. At sentencing, Defendant requested an alternative sentence of probation, but the trial court found that Defendantwas “not properly suited for a suspended sentence” and imposed an effective sentence of six years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for probation. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank Wilbourn, Jr.
The Defendant, Frank Wilbourn, Jr., was convicted by a Madison County jury of simple possession of cocaine, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon previously convicted of a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon previously convicted of a drug offense, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the Defendant’s weapons convictions and imposed an effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of necessity and that his sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Wayne Norrod
The Defendant, Richard Wayne Norrod, appeals from the DeKalb County Criminal Court’s probation revocation of the three-year sentence he received for his guilty-pleaded conviction for the sale or delivery of less than one-half gram of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking the Defendant’s probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement for a first technical violation. The State concedes that the court abused its discretion. We agree with the parties, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court and immediately reinstate the Defendant’s probation. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hayden S. Fryer v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Hayden S. Fryer, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in sustaining the State’s hearsay objection regarding a codefendant’s out-of-court statements, in denying the Petitioner’s request to make an offer of proof regarding those statements, and in finding that he failed to establish that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lamont Luster
The Defendant, Christopher Lamont Luster, appeals his Robertson County Circuit Court conviction of rape of a child, for which he received a sentence of thirty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, (2) he was denied a fair trial because he was unable to adequately hear the testimony, and (3) his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction but vacate his sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Murillo-Salgado
A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Jose Murillo-Salgado, of two counts of first degree premeditated murder(counts one and three), two counts of first degree felony murder (counts two and four), and one count of especially aggravated burglary(count five). The trial court sentenced Defendant to life sentences for the murder convictions and merged counts one and three with counts two and four, and sentenced Defendant to an additional twelve years at 100%for the especially aggravated burglary conviction. All counts were ordered to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support his convictions. However, under the facts of this case, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-1004(d) prohibits Defendant from being convicted of both especially aggravated burglary and felony murder, we reduce Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary to aggravated burglary and modify his sentence for that conviction to a six-year term as a Range I Standard offender to be served consecutively. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments as to the murder convictions and modify the judgment for especially aggravated robbery. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent Johnson
The Defendant, Vincent Johnson, seeks review of his continued pretrial custody. The Defendant is currently represented by appointed counsel in the trial court. He filed the instant pleading pro se, however. It has long been the rule that a defendant may not be represented by counsel and simultaneously proceed pro se on appeal before this Court. State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Parsons, 437 S.W.3d 457, 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011); Robinson v. State, No. W2024-01916-CCA-R3-PC, 2026 WL 1781863 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 22, 2026). Accordingly, the instant pro se pleading is hereby dismissed. Counsel may seek review of the Defendant’s custody status, if appropriate. Tenn. R. App. P. 8. Because it appears the Defendant has been declared indigent, costs are taxed to the State. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the Defendant, counsel of record and the trial court clerk. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Odell Holcomb ex rel. Marianna Walls
This matter is before the Court upon the pro se petition of the Defendant, Thomas Odell Holcomb, for an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The petition is signed by the Defendant’s “next friend,” Marianna Walls. The Defendant did not attach to his petition a copy of a trial court order addressing any motion to recuse. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 2.03. Instead, he included a copy of a trial court order, entered on July 29, 2026, appointing counsel to represent him on a pending post-conviction petition. Thus, it is evident the Defendant is currently represented by counsel. Aside from the fact the petition is incomplete, Rule 10B, Section 1.01, specifically prohibits a party who is represented by counsel from filing a pro se motion to recuse. The same prohibition holds true for a party filing a pro se petition to appeal. See State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Parsons, 437 S.W.3d 457, 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011); Robinson v. State, No. W2024-01916-CCA-R3-PC, 2026 WL 1781863 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 22, 2026). Accordingly, the instant pro se petition is hereby denied |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bradi Baker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bradi Baker,shot and killed her ex-husband in 2019. After her conviction for second degree murder was affirmedon appeal, she filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The Madison County Circuit Courtdenied thispetitionafter a hearing. She now appeals. Because the Petitioner’s due process claims were waived, and her ineffective assistance claims lacked proof of both deficiency and prejudice, she failed to meet her burden under the Post‑Conviction Procedure Act. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamen Lee Cowan
The defendant, Jamen Lee Cowan, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation, |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Aaron Cox
The Defendant, Darrell Aaron Cox, appeals the sentence imposed for his Cumberland |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chaziah Jibril Woods and Ronnie Dale Sims, Jr.
A Davidson County jury convicted both Chaziah Jibril Woods and Ronnie Dale Sims, Jr. of first degree felony murder (Count 1), first degree premeditated murder (Count 2), attempted first degree murder (Count 3), three counts of employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony (Counts 4, 7, and 9), attempted especially aggravated robbery (Count 5), and two counts of especially aggravated burglary (Counts 6 and 8). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-two years for Woods and an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-five years for Sims. Thereafter, Woods and Sims filed appeals, and their appeals were consolidated for appellate review. Woods argues on appeal: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from Sims’s trial; (3) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the substitute DNA analyst; (4) the trial court erred in admitting DNA evidence; (5) the trial court erred in admitting digital and message evidence; (6) the trial court erred in admitting exhibits and evidence against Woods that included communications, records, and contextual proof from Sims’s cell phone; (7) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on criminal responsibility and mere presence; (8) the trial court erred in admitting photographs and evidence depicting the victim’s gunshot wounds and post-mortem conditions; (9) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (10) the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to a new trial. Sims contends on appeal: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in admitting the call detail records from T- Mobile; and (3) the trial court violated his right of confrontation and his right to a fair trial when it allowed the State to present DNA evidence through a substitute witness, rather than through the original DNA testing analyst. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Count 1 and Count 2 for both Woods and Sims. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Pruett
The Defendant, David Pruett, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of rape of a child, a Class A felony; especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nocomus Harris
After being convicted of first degree murder and tampering with the evidence, Nocomus Harris, Defendant, appealed. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s denial of a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. After a review, we determine Defendant has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for inadequate briefing. Additionally, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cassen N. Jackson-Garrison
Defendant, Cassen Jackson-Garrison, appeals his convictions for three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated statutory rape, and two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, for which he received an effective twenty-six-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for rape, sexual battery by an authority figure, and statutory rape by an authority figure; (2) the admission of evidence regarding the possibility of additional victims and the admission of evidence of grooming as violating Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) the exclusion of evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412; and (4) the admission of rebuttal testimony. Defendant also contends he is entitled to relief due to the cumulative effect of the errors. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Asata D. Lowe
The Petitioner, Asata D. Lowe, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s summary |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Ray McBee
The Defendant, Larry Ray McBee, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Gary W. Sutton v. State of Tennessee
The State of Tennessee has filed an application for extraordinary appeal, see Tenn. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert James Tipler
Robert James Tipler, Defendant, was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for first degree murder, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon after an incident that resulted in the death of Ronnie Hines, the victim. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment because the State allegedly committed a Ferguson violation by failing to preserve police body camera footage and moved for recusal of the District Attorney General based on an allegation that the State influenced the medical examiner. The trial court denied the motions. At trial, Defendant sought to dismiss the case based on improper conduct by the State. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted Defendant as charged. As a result, Defendant was sentenced to life for the first degree murder conviction. The trial court merged the firearms convictions into a single count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced Defendant to ten years at thirty percent, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal 251 days after the denial of a motion for new trial. Because the interests of justice do not support the waiver of the timeliness of the notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Lee Shields, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donald Lee Shields, Jr., appeals the order denying post-conviction relief from his Warren County convictions for attempted aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of eighteen years. Two weeks before his original trial, the Petitioner fired his original counsel and retained new trial counsel despite being advised by the trial court that a continuance would not be granted if he did so. As grounds for post-conviction relief, the Petitioner now contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to adequately prepare for trial given the limited time available for preparation and trial counsel’s failure to present exculpatory witness testimony. After review, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Everett Eshawn Moore
Defendant, Everett Eshawn Moore, pleaded guilty to attempted especially aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. Defendant requested an alternative sentence, but the trial court imposed an effective eight-year sentence of incarceration, finding the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the offenses warranted confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings on the record and abused its discretion by denying all forms of alternative sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alexander Mhlanga
The Defendant, Alexander Mhlanga, entered an open guilty plea to driving under the influence (DUI), ninth offense; DUI per se, ninth offense; and driving on a revoked license, second offense or more. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ incarceration as a Range III, persistent offender, at a one hundred percent service rate. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for alternative sentencing and by failing to consider his eligibility for community corrections, regardless of the overall length of his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesus Castanon
Defendant, Jesus Castanon, appeals his conviction for rape of a child and his resulting forty-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Pamela Castle v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Pamela Castle, pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to a term |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deterries Q. Seymour
Deterries Q. Seymour, Defendant, was serving a four-year sentence on supervised probation when he appeared before the trial court on his second probation revocation hearing. The amended probation violation warrant alleged a single failed drug screening for marijuana and cocaine and a Class A misdemeanor arrest/charge. The warrant’s “violation information” alleged a “Graduated Zero Tolerance Violation.” After a hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation in full on the basis that Defendant committed five technical violations, counting each drug found within the Defendant’s system, including drugs from a previous failed drug screen already adjudicated as a separate technical violation. The trial court determined that Defendant had committed five technical violations, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-311 et seq. and the Tennessee Department of Correction’s community supervision sanction matrix (“Matrix”). Defendant appeals the full revocation of his probation. After review, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Wilson | 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.