Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Buddy Livesay
The Defendant, Buddy Livesay, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Austin Byrd
Defendant, Eric Austin Byrd, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court convictions for |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Brandon Johnson, has filed a petition for an accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2, seeking review of the trial court’s August 26, 2026 order denying the Petitioner’s motion for recusal of the trial court in his pending coram nobis proceedings. Following our de novo review, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the Petitioner’s motion for recusal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alex Bernard Campbell
The Defendant, Alex Bernard Campbell, appeals the revocation of his 11-month, 29-daycommunity corrections sentence, arguing that there was no substantial evidence in support of the trial court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his probation by committing an aggravated domestic assault. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jereco Tynes v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Jereco Tynes, has filed a “Notice of Appeal Order Replying to the Dismissal of the Petitioner Motion to Reopen Post-Conviction” seeking review of the post-conviction court’s July 10, 2026 order denying his motion to reopenhispetition for post-convictionrelief. The appellate court clerk docketed the pleading as an application seeking permission to appeal from the denial of a motion to reopen SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117(c); see also Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 10(B). Upon review, we have determined that a response from the State is not necessary and summarily deny relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyle Dwight Shaddon
The Defendant, Kyle Dwight Shaddon, pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for possessing over 379 images of child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”). After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to partially consecutive sentencing for a total effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his guilty plea is not valid because it was not written and signed, as required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e). He further contends that the trial court erred when it ordered partial consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Peter Merrill
The defendant, Nicholas Peter Merrill, pled guilty to one count of aggravated child neglect |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allan Hunt
A Sevier County jury convicted the defendant, Allan Hunt, of sexual battery, for which he |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harshal Dilip Trivedi
The defendant, Harshal Dilip Trivedi, was convicted by a Lincoln County Circuit Court jury of three counts of assault and one count of resisting arrest, for which he received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to probation after service of 150 days in jail. At a later contempt hearing, the defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt and received a sentence of ten days in jail. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of resisting arrest or alternatively failing to declare the statute unconstitutional; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence he made racial epithets; (4) the trial court wrongly instructed the jury on protection of property; (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for assault; (6) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing; and (7) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of criminal contempt. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
SARA RENEE MCINTYRE v. BLAKE ANTHONY STOREY
In this divorce action, the trial court declared the parties divorced on stipulated grounds. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamarcus Terrell Carpenter
The Defendant, Lamarcus Terrell Carpenter, was convicted in the Tipton County Circuit Court of being a felon in possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, a Class B felony; being a felon in possession of a handgun, a Class E felony; and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor, and received an effective sentence of sixteen years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of resisting arrest and that the prosecutor’s inappropriate statements during the State’s cross-examination of the Defendant and during the State’s closing argument warrants a new trial. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fred Wayne Putt, Jr.
A Moore County jury found the defendant, Fred Wayne Putt, Jr., guilty of being a convicted violent felon in possession of a firearm, simple possession of methamphetamine, possession of a legend drug without a prescription, a muffler violation, and a financial responsibility violation, for which he received a total effective sentence of thirteen years in confinement and a $325 fine. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted violent felon and that the trial court erred in failing to issue a requested jury instruction. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the defendant’s conviction. |
Moore | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Javari Jackson-Allen
A Knox County grand jury charged the Defendant, Javari Jackson-Allen, via presentment |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michelle Corley v. Tony Lee Corley
A mother brought a post-divorce contempt petition alleging multiple instances where father had violated the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. At the hearing on the contempt petition, the trial court found that mother was in possession of notes from her attorney during her redirect examination. Father moved for a mistrial, and the court granted the motion. Father subsequently objected to a new hearing on the ground that retrial would violate the double jeopardy protections of the state and federal constitutions. We have determined that retrial of the father, who requested the mistrial, would not violate double jeopardy protections. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kortney Dalon Ball
In 2021, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of aggravated assault by strangulation or attempted strangulation. At his 2024 trial, the trial court instructed the jury on the charged aggravated assault offense as well as the lesser included offenses of attempted aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, domestic assault, attempted domestic assault, and domestic assault by offensive contact. After deliberating, the jury acquitted the Defendant of aggravated assault by strangulation as well as the lesser-included offenses of attempted aggravated assault and reckless aggravated assault. However, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the domestic assault charge, and the trial court declared a mistrial. At the Defendant’s 2025 retrial, the jury convicted the Defendant of domestic assault. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) his conviction for domestic assault should be vacated and his indictment dismissed with prejudice because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that domestic assault was a lesser-included offense of the indicted aggravated assault offense; (2) the trial court violated his due process and confrontation rights when it denied him access to the transcript from his first trial, when it restricted his cross-examination of the victim, and when it failed to declare a mistrial in response to the victim’s testimony that the Defendant had “a history of selling [drugs]”; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting unauthenticated photographs of the victim’s alleged injuries; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence and in setting a restrictive appeal bond and bond conditions following the appellate court’s intervention; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors requires relief. After review, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction for domestic assault, vacate the judgment, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Abhinav Upadhyaya v. Disha Awasthi
On the first day of a scheduled divorce trial, the parties announced an agreement in open court as to the remaining property issues in dispute. The parties thereafter submitted competing orders to the trial court; the trial court adopted the wife’s proposed language in the final decree. The husband appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment and award the wife her reasonable appellate attorney’s fees and expenses. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chase Lyndal Harrison
In two separate indictments, the Defendant, Chase Lyndal Harrison, pleaded guilty to mitigated statutory rape and to possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver a Schedule VI drug (marijuana) over half an ounce. The trial court placed the Defendant on judicial diversion for a total of four years for the two convictions. The Defendant’s probation officers filed multiple probation violation reports, and the trial court issued multiple warrants for the Defendant. After a hearing, the court found the Defendant violated the terms of his probation, and it revoked judicial diversion. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of four years, one of which was to be served in confinement followed by three years of probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
BRANDON HALL v. KYLE MITCHELL
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Because of the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief, we deem the appellant’s issues waived. We grant the appellee’s request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal but decline to vacate the trial court’s order on a post-hearing motion to compel. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alexander Carino
The Petitioner, Alexander Carino, appeals the coram nobis court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis based upon newly discovered evidence as being time-barred. On appeal, we affirm the coram nobiscourt’s summary dismissal of the petition as being time-barred. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allan Partin
The Defendant, Allan Partin, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence for aggravated burglary, domestic assault, and attempted kidnapping and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to properly apply the two-step process required for revocation of his community corrections sentence. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings regarding its consequence determination, leaving the record inadequately developed for meaningful appellate review. The State responds that the trial court made the requisite findings before exercising its discretion to order the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. We agree with the Defendant that the trial court failed to articulate its findings concerning the consequence imposed for the revocation. However, upon our de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and conclude that full revocation of his community corrections sentence was proper. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE BRYISON B.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. We affirm the trial court’s findings as |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE BRANTLEY S. ET AL
This appeal arises from the termination of parental rights of Dustin S. ("Father"), and Katlyn H. ("Mother"). The trial court found that two grounds had been proven: (1) both parents had committed severe child abuse under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1 113(g)(4) against their children, and (2) each had received a felony sentence of two years for severe child abuse under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(5). The trial court also found that termination of their rights was in the best interest of the children. Both parents appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Grainger | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daekwon Kaderius Dodd
The State of Tennessee has filed an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Jessica Trimble v. Gregory John Vela
Mother filed a petition to modify the parties’ parenting plan seeking additional parenting time with the child. Father filed a counter-petition alleging that Mother had repeatedly interfered with Father’s parenting time and communication with the child, and he requested that he be designated primary residential parent. The trial court modified the parenting plan by designating Father as the primary residential parent, reducing Mother’s parenting time from 265 days to 120 days, and increasing Father’s parenting time from 100 days to 245 days. Mother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its application of the best interest factors. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Kelly v. Beth Bhatnagar et al.
A property owner relocated several monuments from a historic family burial ground located on his property and later filed a petition seeking to terminate the land’s use as a burial ground. The defendants, who are other descendants of those identified on the monuments, denied that the burial ground should be closed and filed a counterclaim seeking injunctive relief. After a bench trial, the court found that the statutory requirements for closure were not met and dismissed the petition. The trial court entered an injunction ordering the return of the monuments and the honoring of a defendant’s wish to be buried there. We reverse the portion of the order regarding the defendant’s burial rights. Finding no other reversible error, we affirm in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |