Opinions
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 | |
Ryan Eugene Betz v. Amberly Dawn Betz
In this interlocutory appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. After evaluating the trial court’s ruling under the de novo standard of review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for recusal. |
Sumner | Court of 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 | |
Antwain Tapaige Sales v. S. Sgt. Gross ET AL.
Pro se Appellant, Antwain Tapaige Sales, has appealed an order of the Hardeman County Chancery Court that was entered on December 17, 2025. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. |
Hardeman | Court of 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 | |
IN RE OWEN W.
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
KAREN BYRNE v. FLAVIUS DRAGILA, M.D., ET AL.
In this health care liability action, the plaintiff asserted claims against multiple physicians |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
MARIE VERNON WOLFE v. DERREK PUGH
A judgment creditor domesticated a South Carolina judgment in Tennessee under the |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Alex Williams v. Donna Horton (Howell)
Mother and Father filed competing petitions for modification of the parenting plan. Finding a material change in circumstances and finding modification to be in the child’s best interests, the trial court named Father primary residential parent and awarded Father attorney’s fees. Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brykell F.
Julius W. (hereinafter “Julius” or “Respondent”), the biological father of Brykell F. (“Brykell”), appeals the termination of his parental rights to Brykell. On appeal he contends the trial judge should have recused herself, he was denied due process, and the evidence was insufficient to prove any ground for termination or that termination of his parental rights is in Brykell’s best interest. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of 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 | |
Delester Quarles v. John Doe A, et al.
This appeal requires us to determine whether the Plaintiff/Appellant commenced an action against the John Doe defendants within the applicable statute of limitations such that he may recover under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. The trial court granted the Defendant/Appellee’s motion to dismiss, holding that the applicable statute of limitations was one year and that Appellant’s claims expired due to his failure to serve the John Doe Defendants. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
BARBARA PENNY v. CLIFFORD WALDROUP
Because no final order has been entered in the underlying trial court proceedings, this Court |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
James P. Little v. United Services Automobile Association, Inc.
The plaintiff insured filed a claim against his homeowners insurance company for damages |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
John T. Rankin v. HSM Holdings LLC
This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in finding that Appellant lacked standing to bring his lawsuit. Because Appellant suffered no legal injury, we affirm. |
Cheatham | Court of 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 |