Brandon E. Banks v. State of Tennessee
In 2017, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Brandon E. Banks, of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery. Before trial, the trial court denied the Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone. The State then made two plea offers, which the Petitioner rejected before proceeding to trial. On direct appeal, this court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress but concluded that the error was harmless. The Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner raises three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that trial counsel failed to communicate adequately with him during the plea negotiations that followed the suppression ruling. He also argues that trial counsel should have sought interlocutory review of that ruling or advised him to preserve the issue as a certified question of law. Finally, he argues that trial counsel should have called an expert witness to support his duress defense at trial. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amanda Suzanne Ross
Defendant, Amanda Suzanne Ross, appeals her conviction for driving under the influence, first offense. She contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment because it was untimely under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40‑2‑102(a) and 40-2-104. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amanda R. Mobley Henry
Defendant, Amanda R. Mobley Henry, appeals the trial court’s order revoking her six year probationary sentence for financial exploitation of an elderly person and ordering her to serve the balance of her sentence in confinement. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that she absconded from supervision and by fully revoking her probation. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael B. Hurst
The Defendant, Michael B. Hurst, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Ray Roark
The Defendant, Kevin Ray Roark, was convicted by a Greene County jury of driving under |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Devan Denton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Devan Denton, filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that due process required the tolling of the statute of limitations based on alleged attorney abandonment, and that the statute of limitations should be tolled because he pursued federal habeas corpus relief before filing his post-conviction petition. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was untimely and that the Petitioner failed to present a basis for due process tolling. The Petitioner appeals, claiming the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Agness McCurry
The pro se Defendant, Agness McCurry, has filed an application for extraordinary |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chadrick Rayfield
On September 28, 2026, the Fourth Judicial District Public Defender filed an |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyle Scott Wallace
This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Kyle Scott Wallace, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his motion to recuse. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Howard Wigand
Defendant, Michael Howard Wigand, pleaded guilty to two counts each of reckless |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Davis
The Defendant, Joseph Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony; two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony; two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony; and criminal attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony, and received an effective sentence of forty-nine years. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-522(2018) (subsequently amended) (rape of a child), 39-13-504 (2018) (subsequently amended) (aggravated sexual battery), 39-17-1005 (2025) (especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor), 39-12-101(a)(3) (2025) (criminal attempt).On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Because we agree that the evidence is insufficient to support the especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor convictions in Counts 3 and 5, we vacate those convictions and judgments and remand the case. We affirm the Defendant’s remaining convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Steven Borel
Defendant, Michael Steven Borel, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s order fully revoking his sentence of probation. On appeal, Defendant contends his conduct amounted only to a technical violation and the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence incarcerated. After review, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking Defendant’s probationary sentence for his felony conviction following a finding of a first technical probation violation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and reinstate Defendant’s probation for the felony offense. Asto Defendant’s probated misdemeanor sentences however, following our de novo review, we affirm the trial court’s full revocation of probation. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devonta Curry
Devonta Curry, Movant,filed a pro se motion titled “Motion for Rule 36.1 Correction of Illegal Sentence.” The trial court summarily denied the motion for failure to state a colorable claim. We affirm the trial court’s judgment but remand for entry of corrected judgments of conviction for Counts 1-7 in Case No. 18-551,reflecting that Movant was convicted by a jury. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Gary Blankenship, II
The Defendant, Charles Gary Blankenship, II, has filed a pro se application for extraordinary appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 10, seeking review of the trial court’s August 24, 2026 capias for failure to appear. We have determined that a response from the State is not necessary in this matter. Tenn. R. App. P. 10(d). Upon review of the application and its supporting documents, we conclude that the Defendant has not demonstrated grounds for extraordinary relief under Rule 10. Accordingly, the application is DENIED. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Cooper
The Defendant, Jason Cooper, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction of |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Samuel v. State of Tennessee
Tony Samuel, Petitioner, filed a pro se petition that the trial court construed as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed “to plead with particularity both the substance of the newly discovered evidence and the factual basis for tolling the statute of limitations. ”Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William B. Morton
Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant, William B. Morton, appeals a certified question of law related to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the results of blood alcohol testing performed on a sample of his blood obtained via search warrant. Following our de novo review of the question presented and our examination of the record, we conclude that the certified question fails to identify the scope and limits of the issue presented and is not dispositive of the case. Thus, in keeping with the recent directive of our supreme court, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to provide the Defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Chadwick Vaughn
The Defendant, James Chadwick Vaughn, pled guilty in the Criminal Court for Sumner County to three Class D felonies and two misdemeanors. The plea petition provided that the trial court would determine the specific sentence, within a range of eight to twelve years for the felony convictions, with all sentences served concurrently. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twelve years in confinement and ordered the Defendant to participate in a rehabilitative program as a condition of parole. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court committed plain error by classifying the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender; (2) whether the trial court erred by imposing a condition of parole; and (3) whether the Defendant’s plea was valid and complied with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Upon our review, we respectfully vacate the parole condition and remand the case for entry of corrected judgments. We further conclude that we lack authority to review the validity of the Defendant’s guilty plea. We respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Celso Valentin Ferto
Defendant, Celso Valentin Ferto, appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of solicitation of a minor, arguing (1) the trial court erred in admitting forensic interviews pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123, (2) the admission of the forensic videos violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Sims v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eric Sims, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged in effective assistance of trial counsel. The Petitioner claims on appeal that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition in that he established in effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel 1) stipulated to the Petitioner’s gang affiliation;2) failed to file a motion to suppress an unduly suggestive photographic lineup;and3) failed to adequately cross-examine and impeach three of the State’s witnesses. He also argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief under the cumulative error doctrine. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment but remand for entry of corrected judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harshal Dilip Trivedi v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Harshal Dilip Trivedi, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his motion to recuse. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gena Kilgore
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Gena Kilgore, of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $2,500.Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a two-year term of judicial diversion and ordered the Defendant to pay $2,500 in restitution. The Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s denial of her request to sit at counsel table during her trial. Because we conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we dismiss it. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Markee Mosley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Tony Markee Mosley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we conclude that a self-represented criminal defendant has no constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel from an attorney acting in a standby or advisory role, and because trial counsel provided effective assistance while actively representing the petitioner, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Caleb James Fryfogle
The defendant, Caleb James Fryfogle, was convicted by a Maury County jury of two counts of driving under the influence and one count of driving without a license for which he received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to probation after service of four days incarceration and suspension of his license for a year. Additionally, as a result of his convictions, the defendant’s license was suspended for a year. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in finding that he voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw. Following our review of the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kortney Ball
This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Kortney Ball, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his motion to recuse. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. |
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.