Opinions

State of Tennessee v. Everett Eshawn Moore
W2025-01195-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kyle C. Atkins

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.

Kenneth Merritt v. American Home Shield
W2025-01142-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Yolanda Kight Brown

The pro se plaintiff sued his home warranty company alleging various causes of action
after the cancellation of his home warranty contract. The trial court granted the defendant
partial summary judgment, finding that numerous claims asserted by the plaintiff were
barred by the statute of limitations. The only remaining claim, for breach of contract,
proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of the plaintiff’s proof, the trial court granted the
defendant’s motion for a directed verdict due to the absence of any proof regarding
damages. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Kendal Collier ex rel. Chayce C. v. Periclis Roussis, M.D. et al.
E2022-00636-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins
Trial Court Judge: Judge William T. Ailor

exposure to extraneous information during deliberations in a civil case warrants a new trial. The parties in this healthcare liability action tried a complex, multi-day trial in which a central issue was whether it was appropriate for medical personnel not to use epinephrine to treat a pregnant patient’s anaphylactic reaction. The trial included extensive expert testimony about the risks, benefits, and usage of epinephrine during pregnancy. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendants. Thereafter, the Plaintiff learned that one night during jury deliberations, a juror at home examined the warning label on an EpiPen, an epinephrine auto-injector device, and shared that information with the jury during continued deliberations. The Plaintiff moved for a new trial based in part on a claim that the jury’s exposure to the EpiPen information “tainted the verdict.” The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff had not established by clear and convincing evidence that exposure to the EpiPen information affected the jury. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard. We granted permission to appeal to decide the proper analysis when a party in a civil case implicating the constitutional right to a jury trial challenges a verdict because the jury allegedly was exposed to extraneous information. Considering our analogous precedent from criminal cases, we hold that our courts should use a burden-shifting framework to determine whether error occurred and a new trial is required. More specifically, the party challenging the verdict bears the initial burden of proving error—that the jury was exposed to material extraneous information—by a preponderance of the evidence. Upon a successful showing, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises. This circumstance places a burden on the party defending the verdict to rebut the presumption of prejudice by showing that exposure to the material extraneous information was harmless error. To make this showing, the party must demonstrate that there is no reasonable possibility that the information would have altered the verdict of a reasonable jury. Absent this showing, a new trial is warranted due to the violation of the constitutional right to a jury trial. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of this framework when deciding the motion for a new trial, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In Re Conservatorship of Columbus Lewis, Jr.
M2024-01924-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andra J. Hedrick

Paula Lewis, the former conservator for Columbus Lewis, Jr., appeals the finding by the probate court that she breached her fiduciary duty as conservator by making expenditures and other financial transactions without prior court approval and the assessment of a judgment against her in the amount of $23,800. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Alexander Mhlanga
M2025-00958-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howard W. Wilson

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.

Robert Fuller et al. v. Michael E. Barnes
M2025-00642-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Louis W. Oliver, III

This appeal arises from an easement dispute between neighbors concerning a dog pen easement/encroachment onto the adjacent property. Following the approval of a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from removing the plaintiffs’ dog pen, the Sumner County Chancery Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court found that the easement was valid and enforceable against the defendant even though it had not been approved or recorded by city planners. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Jesus Castanon
W2025-01586-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Jones, Jr.

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.

Pamela Castle v. State of Tennessee
W2025-01496-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jennifer Fitzgerald

Petitioner, Pamela Castle, pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to a term
of twenty years imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on
the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after
a hearing, and Petitioner appealed. She argues that the post-conviction court erred in
dismissing her petition because her plea counsel (1) failed to provide her with a complete
hard copy of discovery prior to advising her to enter a guilty plea, (2) overemphasized
inculpatory testimony and failed to investigate exculpatory evidence, and (3)
mischaracterized the evidence and gave improper legal advice. Upon review of the entire
record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction
court.

State of Tennessee v. Deterries Q. Seymour
M2025-00913-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
Trial Court Judge: Judge Brody N. Kane

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. 

State of Tennessee v. Corderro Mortez Lee
W2025-00670-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clayburn Peeples

The Defendant, Corderro Mortez Lee, was convicted in the Gibson County Circuit Court of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as four monthsin jail and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that his four-month jail sentenceis excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Quaverre Rogers
W2025-01038-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Jones, Jr.

The Defendant, Quaverre Rogers, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of
voluntary manslaughter and possession of a prohibited weapon and received an effective
fourteen-year sentence. On appeal, he claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction of voluntary manslaughter; (2) the trial court committed plain error by
allowing a medical examiner, who did not prepare the victim’s autopsy report, to testify
about the report and by admitting the report into evidence; and (3) his effective sentence is
excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Sheppard Washington
W2025-01115-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kyle C. Atkins

In 2019, the Defendant, Sheppard Washington, pleaded guilty to two counts of violating
the sex offender registry statute. The trial court ordered him to serve six years, suspended
after serving eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement. The remainder of the
five-year and one-day sentence was to be served on community corrections. In 2022, the
trial court ordered that the Defendant be transferred to probation under the supervision of
the Tennessee Department of Correction. In June 2024, the trial court revoked the
Defendant’s probation. In May 2025, the Defendant filed a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an
illegal sentence. He alleged that he did not receive credit for his time served on community
corrections. On May 23, 2025, the trial court found by order, first, that the Defendant did
not appeal the revocation order, so it was final. Next, it found that the Defendant’s time
was served on probation and not community corrections, so he was not entitled to jail
credits. The Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

4000 TN, LLC v. JOHN MCCLELLAN ET AL.
E2025-01192-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Kyle E. Hedrick, Judge

This appeal concerns a commercial lease dispute in which the lessees stopped paying rent
and abandoned the property. The lessees asserted that the landlord repudiated the lease by
preparing development plans that, if carried out, would interfere with the lessees’
restaurant, including the parking spaces that the landlord was contractually obligated to
make available for lessees’ guests and invitees. The landlord sued the lessees for breach
of contract, and the lessees filed counterclaims. The landlord later moved for summary
judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord. On appeal,
the lessees argue that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the landlord failed
to provide the required minimum parking and whether the landlord’s development plans
amounted to anticipatory repudiation of the lease. We conclude, inter alia, that there are
no genuine issues of material fact requiring trial and that the landlord is entitled to summary
judgment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We also grant Plaintiff’s request
for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal and remand to the trial court for a determination of
reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

State of Tennessee v. Toni Lynn Petersen
M2026-00856-CCA-R8-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter; Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer; Judge Jill Bartee Ayers

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendant, Toni Lynn Petersen, for review of the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion to revoke her pretrial bond. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes. For the reasons stated below, the Defendant’s motion is denied.

BEVERLY HENSON v. MELANIE WISHON
E2025-01653-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Beth Boniface, Judge

In this detainer action, the trial court granted the plaintiff a judgment for possession of
real property after a bench trial. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiff lacked standing. The defendant also contends
the judgment and writ of possession are void. We affirm.

TERRANCE REESE v. RACHEL HILL (FORMERLY LAMBERT)
E2025-01783-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Deborah C. Stevens, Judge

The trial court dismissed Appellant’s legal malpractice claims against Appellee as time-barred. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

IN RE TYDUS W. ET AL.
E2025-01878-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael E. Jenne

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that three statutory
grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her four children: 1) abandonment
for failure to support; 2) persistence of conditions; and 3) failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the children.
The trial court also concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Re Knox G.
M2024-01355-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stanley Kweller

Mother and Stepfather sought termination of Father’s parental rights to a child who is subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights. Father appeals, alleging (1) various violations of the ICWA; (2) due process violations; (3) improper entry of default judgment; (4) a violation of his right to counsel; (5) improper application of the standard of proof required by the ICWA; (6) insufficient evidence to establish the termination grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody, and (7) error as to the finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the ground of failure to visit was established by clear and convincing evidence, but we affirm the judgment of termination. We deny Mother and Stepfather’s request for attorney’s fees.

Mike Oliver v. Andrew Goodman
M2025-01916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Judge David Henry Veile

This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in concluding that the father severely reduced the maternal grandfather’s visitation under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s grant of visitation to his children’s maternal grandfather. Appellee/Grandfather appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306(g). Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in finding that Appellant severely reduced Appellee’s visitation with the children, we vacate its order and remand with instructions to re-evaluate whether there has been a severe reduction in visitation in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-6-306(a), (f), and 36-1-102(1)(C).

Gabrielle Alvoid v. Larson Enterprises
M2026-01108-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hugh Reid Poland, III

Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking to recuse the general sessions judge.  Due to the deficiencies in Appellant’s brief and her failure to attach the motion to recuse to her petition, we dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s motion for stay is denied.

IN RE TYDUS W. ET AL.
E2025-01878-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael E. Jenne

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that three statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her four children: 1) abandonment for failure to support; 2) persistence of conditions; and 3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the children. The trial court also concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Eric Branch
M2025-00579-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge James A. Turner

Defendant, Eric Branch, appeals from his jury convictions for four counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of rape of a child, and one count of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony crime of violence, for which he is serving an effective sentence of eighty-two years. On appeal, he argues that (1) his right to a unanimous verdict was violated in Counts 1 and 2; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions in Counts 3 and 4; and (3) the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

Harding Place Multifamily Partners, LLC d/b/a Emerson at Harding v. Samuel Robinson
M2025-01361-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynne T. Ingram

A residential management company sought damages related to a tenant’s recent eviction. The circuit court awarded damages, and the tenant appealed. After careful review, we conclude that the tenant’s brief contains inaccurate citations throughout that reflect the hallmarks of artificial intelligence. We disregard the inaccurate or fabricated portions of the brief. Discerning no error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm.

In Re Monii N. et al.
M2026-01046-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert C. Richardson

In this petition for recusal appeal, pro se parents seek an accelerated interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying mother’s motion seeking disqualification of the juvenile court judge.  We affirm.

EMILIOS TAHINCI v. ALEXIS IRENE TAHINCI
E2026-00998-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Katherine Leigh Priester

A husband sought recusal based on the trial judge’s decisions in his divorce case. The husband contended that the decisions established a clear appearance of bias or a conflict of interest. After the judge denied the motion to recuse, this accelerated interlocutory appeal followed. We affirm.