Opinions

Lynn Frank Bristol v. State of Tennessee
M2025-01264-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Thomas Carter

battery for incidents involving his stepdaughter. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition. During an evidentiary hearing, the parties agreed that the petition was timely, and the State did not object to the absence of verification of the petition as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40‑30‑104(d) and (e). The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. The State asserts for the first time on appeal that the petition was time-barred, the post-conviction court was without jurisdiction to consider it, and it should therefore be dismissed. The Petitioner acknowledges that his certificate of service was neither sworn to nor notarized. He nevertheless asserts that the certification of service was adequate proof of prison mailbox rule compliance; therefore, his petition was timely. At oral argument in this case, the parties requested and this court granted supplemental briefing on whether the absence of verification under section 40‑30‑104(d) and (e) required dismissal of the petition. We now hold that the verification requirement is a mandatory procedural rule. Because the State failed to invoke its procedural-based verification claim until after the evidentiary hearing, we conclude this issue has been forfeited, and dismissal of the petition is not warranted. We also conclude that the Petitioner presented sufficient proof for a threshold showing of compliance with the prison mailbox rule pursuant to Butler v. State, 92 S.W.3d 387, 390 91 (Tenn. 2002) (concluding that petitioner’s claim that he delivered pro se petition to a prison official for filing within the statute of limitations was sufficient for him to be given the opportunity at an evidentiary hearing to meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence his compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, § 2(G)). Therefore, we reverse and vacate in part the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of timeliness of the petition for post-conviction relief.

State of Tennessee v. Thaddeus J. Johnson
E2025-01054-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Stacy L. Street
Trial Court Judge: Judge John F. Dugger, Jr.

The Defendant, Thaddeus Johnson, appeals his Hawkins County Criminal Court guiltypleaded
convictions of aggravated assault and robbery, arguing that the trial court erred
by imposing an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration. Although the trial court
erred by failing to place on the record its findings to support the imposition of
consecutive sentences or the denial of alternative sentencing, our de novo review of the
record supports the trial court’s imposition of a total effective sentence of ten years’
incarceration. Accordingly, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Ray Watts
M2025-00728-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael E. Spitzer

The Defendant, Jeffery Ray Watts, was convicted by a Hickman County Circuit Court jury of evading arrest with a motor vehicle creating a risk of death or injury, a Class D felony; reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony; and leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-603 (2025) (evading arrest), 39 13-103 (2025) (reckless endangerment), 55-10-102 (2024) (leaving the scene of an accident). The trial court imposed an effective two-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his initial traffic stop, detention, and subsequent arrest were unconstitutional, that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and that he is entitled to relief due to the cumulative effect of errors in the trial court proceedings. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Kylee Davis v. Uptown Male Spa & Skincare Center, LLC et al.
M2024-01520-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bonita Jo Atwood

An employee sued her former employer and former co-worker, claiming that her former employer violated the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The employee alleged that she was constructively discharged for failing to remain silent about the illegal activities of her former co-worker. The employee also claimed her former employer and former co-worker were liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim and awarded costs. We affirm the dismissal but vacate the award of costs.

Barbara Chestnut v. Rudy Title and Escrow, LLC et al.
M2025-00525-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe Thompson

The plaintiff owned a home that was fraudulently sold. The plaintiff sued the title insurance company that participated in the closing for negligence and fraud. The title company filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Brandon E. Banks v. State of Tennessee
M2025-01134-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cynthia Chappell

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.

DEVELOPED BY DESIGN, LLC v. JAMES M. TRAVIS ET AL.
E2025-01761-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Melissa T. Willis, Chancellor

This is an action involving a dispute over ownership of a tract of unimproved real property.
The plaintiff company had purchased a tract of land for development, but when the
company commenced work on the tract, the adjacent landowners complained that the
company had encroached on the landowners’ real property. The company filed suit against
the landowners, alleging that the company’s understanding of the boundary line location
was consistent with a recorded survey from 1967 and that the deeds to both parties’
properties referenced the same survey. In their answer, the defendant landowners claimed
that they owned the disputed property through the doctrine of adverse possession.
Following a hearing, the trial court determined that the landowners had failed to establish
the elements necessary for a claim of adverse possession. Discerning no reversible error,
we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Hogue
W2025-01093-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clayburn Peeples

The Defendant, Anthony Hogue, pled guilty in the Gibson County Circuit Court to two counts of rape. The trial court imposed consecutive ten-year sentences and suspended them to supervised probation. After the Defendant was discharged from sex-offender treatment, the trial court found that he violated the conditions of his probation and fully revoked his suspended sentences. On appeal, the Defendant raises three issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that he violated the conditions of his probation; (2) whether the admission of the probation officer’s testimony about the reasons for his discharge from treatment violated his due process right to confront adverse witnesses; and (3) whether his original effective sentence of twenty years of supervised probation was illegal. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Fount Holland, et al. v. Jarrin Jackson
W2025-01652-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Michael Maloan

Appellant contests the foreign judgment that Appellees filed in the trial court. The trial court concluded that the judgment was entitled to enforcement in Tennessee. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Gregory "Shane" Owens et al. v. Matt Machado et al.
M2025-01147-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael Wayne Collins

This appeal arises from the trial court’s judgment finding the defendant did not fraudulently misrepresent that he was a licensed contractor. Discerning no error, we affirm

Wilbert Atkins, Jr. v. Calvin McGlown
W2026-01543-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William C. Cole

Appellant filed this petition for recusal appeal after the trial court denied his motion to recuse. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion.

IN RE KNOXLEE B.
E2025-01611-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: John W. McClarty, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Amanda Worley, Judge

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child.
Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established
several grounds of termination and that termination was in the best interest of the child.
We now affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Carla A. Tarar
W2025-01196-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kyle C. Atkins

Defendant, Carla A. Tarar, pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor drug offenses and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days to serve followed by four consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days on supervised probation. After two prior revocations of probation, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation a third time and ordered her to serve the four consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement. Defendant filed a motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court afforded too much weight to her prior criminal record, the terms of her plea agreement, and her probation violations and that the court did not consider Defendant’s progress in addressing her addiction or extenuating circumstances surrounding her relapses. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Amanda R. Mobley Henry
M2025-02071-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Suzanne Lockert-Mash

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.

State of Tennessee v. Amanda Suzanne Ross
M2025-00978-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Parkes

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.

KATHRYN MARCH V. DON DANIEL MARCH
E2026-01515-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: John W. McClarty, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Christopher D. Heagerty, Jr., Chancellor

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the
trial court’s denial of his motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the
petition for recusal appeal, we affirm.

Commercial Painting Company Inc. v. The Weitz Company LLC ET AL
W2019-02089-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded this case, directing this court to determine whether the parties’ contractual waiver applied to punitive damages that were awarded in connection with a tort claim for intentional misrepresentation. We conclude that the contractual waiver in this case is not a bar to the punitive damages awarded for intentional misrepresentation. The trial court’s judgment on this matter is affirmed.

Young Contracting/SE, Inc. v. Pitt Excavating, LLC
M2025-01651-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Russell T. Perkins

A general contractor sued a subcontractor, alleging breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the general contractor and awarded damages and attorney’s fees. The subcontractor appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and remand for a determination of the general contractor’s appellate attorney’s fees.

State of Tennessee v. Michael B. Hurst
E2025-02047-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hector Sanchez

The Defendant, Michael B. Hurst, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury
of unlawful possession of a weapon by a violent felon, a Class B felony, and violation of
the seat belt law, a Class C misdemeanor, and received an effective thirty-year sentence.
See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A) (Supp. 2021) (subsequently amended) (unlawful
possession of a weapon), 55-9-603 (2024) (seat belt law). He appeals the trial court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop and contends the
evidence is insufficient to support the firearm conviction. We affirm the judgments of the
trial court.

WESLEY SKATZES v. PAMELA SKATZES
E2025-01462-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Valerie L. Smith, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Richard B. Armstrong, Jr., Chancellor

This is an appeal from a divorce involving one minor child. Appellant claims that the trial
court erred in multiple ways when valuing and distributing the marital estate. He also
challenges his limited and restricted parenting time in the permanent parenting plan entered
by the court. Because the record is insufficient to support the valuation of certain items
within the marital estate, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s judgment. Further, the
trial court’s order lacks sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the
permanent parenting plan. Accordingly, we vacate the permanent parenting plan and
remand for further proceedings. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Kevin Ray Roark
E2025-01419-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Alex E. Pearson

The Defendant, Kevin Ray Roark, was convicted by a Greene County jury of driving under
the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section
55‑10‑401 and received a suspended sentence of eleven months and twenty‑nine days with
ninety days to serve. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to present a defense and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 by
excluding his proffered expert witness; (2) that the trial court erred under Tennessee Rule
of Evidence 702 and McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263-65
(Tenn. 1997) by admitting the State’s drug‑impairment expert without conducting the
required reliability analysis; (3) that the trial court improperly denied his Rule 29 motion
for judgment of acquittal; and (4) that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Based upon our review, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Re Preston H.
W2026-00214-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael Mansfield

This appeal involves a petition for terminationof parental rights and stepparent adoption. The chancery court found that the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also determined that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm.

IN RE ADELINE S.
E2025-02044-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Christopher D. Heagerty, Chancellor

This action involves the adoption of a minor child whose mother was deceased. The child’s father had gained custody of the child after the child’s mother’s death, but the father was later arrested and incarcerated. The child was then placed in the custody of the paternal grandparents. With the father’s consent, the grandparents filed a petition for termination of the father’s parental rights and for adoption. The trial court granted the petition on the same day it was filed. The maternal grandmother, who had been allowed to intervene in custody proceedings involving the minor child and the paternal grandparents pending in a different court, filed a motion seeking to set aside the adoption decree. The trial court denied the motion, and the maternal grandmother has appealed. Determining that the maternal grandmother lacks standing to seek relief in the trial court or on appeal, we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed.

Devan Denton v. State of Tennessee
W2026-00485-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carlyn L. Addison

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.

William Green, et al. v. Blue Oak Oyster Bar & Grill, LLC, et al.
W2025-01744-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeff Parham

Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Appellants’ premises liability
complaint failed to state a claim. Appellants argued that their complaint was sufficient but
nevertheless sought leave to file an amended complaint to address the alleged deficiencies.
The trial court granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings. The motion to amend
was denied in the same order, which stated that the motion was not addressed as it was
moot. The trial court then denied Appellants’ motion to alter or amend its judgment, finding
that it had applied the correct standard by reviewing only the original complaint. Because
the motion to amend should have been heard before the motions for judgment on the
pleadings and because we conclude the motion to amend should have been granted under
the circumstances, the trial court’s order is reversed as to the denial of the motion to amend
and vacated as to the grant of judgment on the pleadings.