Opinions
Ahmad Aysheh v. City of Memphis
This appeal comes before us from the Shelby County Chancery Court’s order affirming |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Escobar
While serving a probated sentence, the Defendant, Susan Escobar, was arrested and |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wiley Vanover
The Defendant, Wiley Vanover, pled guilty to multiple offenses in two cases. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation, and the trial court revoked the suspended sentence in part and ordered him to serve five of the six years in custody. On appeal, the Defendant admits that he violated his probation conditions but asserts that the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction, such as reinstatement to probation or split confinement. Upon our review, we conclude that the record does not contain the findings necessary for this court to conduct meaningful appellate review of the consequence determination as required by State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Accordingly, we respectfully vacate the revocation orders and remand the case to the trial court for further findings regarding the appropriate consequence for the violations. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Cantrell
Defendant, Jeffery Cantrell, appeals his Knox County convictions for aggravated sexual battery and sexual exploitation of a minor via electronic means, for which he is serving an effective ten-year sentence. Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of pornography found on his cell phone; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred by not granting Defendant’s request for a judgment of acquittal on Count 2of the presentment after the State’s case-in-chief. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Fred C. Dance v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
Tennessee attorney Fred C. Dance represented a client in a wrongful death action that eventually settled. Rather than promptly disburse the settlement proceeds to his client, he used the funds to pay for personal expenses while ignoring his client’s inquiries about the money. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility concluded that Dance had violated Rules 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. Based on its finding that Dance had knowingly converted client property, the hearing panel recommended that Dance be disbarred. In this appeal, we consider whether disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Dance’s misconduct. As a preliminary matter, we clarify that in an appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 33.1(d), this Court reviews the hearing panel’s recommended punishment de novo rather than for abuse of discretion. We affirm the hearing panel’s finding that Dance knowingly converted client property and its application of aggravating and mitigating factors. But after considering the sanctions imposed in similar cases, we conclude that Dance should be suspended rather than disbarred. We therefore reverse the hearing panel’s judgment in part and suspend Dance from practicing law for five years, with three years to be served on active suspension. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Amanda Hurst
The Defendant, Wiley Vanover, pled guilty to multiple offenses in two cases. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation, and the trial court revoked the suspended sentence in part and ordered him to serve five of the six years in custody. On appeal, the Defendant admits that he violated his probation conditions but asserts that the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction, such as reinstatement to probation or split confinement. Upon our review, we conclude that the record does not contain the findings necessary for this court to conduct meaningful appellate review of the consequence determination as required by State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Accordingly, we respectfully vacate the revocation orders and remand the case to the trial court for further findings regarding the appropriate consequence for the violations. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. AMANDA MARIE HURST
The Defendant, Amanda Hurst, entered a guilty plea to child abuse with the trial court to |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demarcus Keyon Cole v. Julian Wiser, Sheriff
The Petitioner, Demarcus Keyon Cole, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Ragland, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donald Ragland, Jr., appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jorge Alberto Garcia
A Williamson County jury convicted Defendant, Jorge Alberto Garcia, of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, eight counts of rape of a child, and two counts of solicitation to commit rape of a child. The trial court imposed an effective sixty-two-year sentence with sex offender registration and community supervision for life. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his confession was involuntary and the detective failed to obtain a valid waiver of his Miranda rights. Additionally, Defendant argues that the erroneous admission of his confession was not harmless error. After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs and arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand for clarification of the trial court’s sentencing order and any resulting corrections of the judgment forms. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
ROBERT BROCK ET AL. v. GRACE WESSEL
A general sessions court, on its own motion, set aside a default judgment in favor of the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jamesway Construction, Inc. v. David W. Salyers, P.E.
Jamesway Construction, Inc., filed a petition for judicial review in chancery court following an administrative law judge’s denial of its motion to dismiss administrative proceedings. Jamesway argued the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation’s appeal to the Board of Water Quality, Oil, and Gas was untimely, and therefore the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The chancery court and Court of Appeals found in Jamesway’s favor on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, yet the chancery court’s own subject matter jurisdiction under Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(a)(1) was never questioned. After granting review, we subsequently directed the parties to brief whether the chancery court had jurisdiction under Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(a)(1) to review a preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency decision. We find that the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under section 4-5-322(a)(1) because Jamesway has not shown that judicial review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy. We vacate the judgments of the lower courts and remand to the Board of Water Quality, Oil, and Gas for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
MAWULE TEPE v. CONNOR MCCARTHY BLAIR ET AL.
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP OF MEIR ANAVI
The appellant seeks to appeal an order entered on March 12, 2026. The notice of appeal |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Thomas Fox v. Nancy Cheairs ET AL.
The instant appeal requires us to determine whether the probate court properly granted summary judgment in this caseinvolving the ownership of interpleaded funds. Appellee Nancy Cheairs filed a federal district court copyright infringement lawsuit against Helen Thomas and her son, Appellee Mark Thomas. Helen Thomas died during the lawsuit’s pendency. Cheairs was granted judgment against Mark Thomas, who subsequently filed bankruptcy. Appellee Lisa Fox, as Helen Thomas’s Personal Representative, filed the instant interpleader action in the trial court, seeking guidance as to who would receive Mark Thomas’ expected inheritance from Helen Thomas. Appellant/law firm, who represented Mark Thomas in the federal lawsuit, filed a notice of attorney’s lien as to the interpleaded funds. The bankruptcy court discharged all of Mark Thomas’ debts except for Cheairs’ judgment and extinguished the law firm’s purported lien. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the federal court orders and granted Cheairs’ motion for summary judgment, awarding her the interpleaded funds. Appellant/law firm appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Scherri Nicole Henderson v. Willie Henderson, Jr.
Because the trial court and parties failed to comply with the prior orders of this Court concerning the sealing of the record, the appeal is not ready for appellate review. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
KIMBERLY J. SMITH v. GREGORY A. SMITH
This appeal concerns post‑divorce proceedings. For many years, wife has sought to enforce husband’s alimony obligation, pursuing civil and criminal contempt based on allegations of nonpayment and nondisclosure of assets. The trial court entered a series of orders denying most of wife’s requested relief, concluding among other things that it could not make husband get and keep a job and that wife had not proven fraud sufficient to reopen the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. Wife appeals. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of Revenue, et al.
Appellant stopped paying the premium on an automobile insurance policy covering his minivan. After receiving notices prescribed by statute, the Department of Revenue revoked the vehicle’s registration. Appellant requested a contested case hearing before that department. While the contested case remained pending, Appellant filed suit in chancery court against the Commissioner of Revenue and the Commissioner of Safety and Homeland Security in their official capacities, alleging that the two departments had gone beyond their statutory authority in administering the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Law and its electronic insurance verification program. Appellant sought declaratory and injunctive relief, the reorganization of both departments under a special master, and more than $369,000 in legal fees. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that sovereign immunity barred the suit because Appellant had not satisfied the requirement of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ginny Elizabeth Parker (Dissenting)
In this appeal, we consider whether the evidence is sufficient to support convictions on five counts of forgery. The convictions relate to five checks payable to and cashed by the defendant that were drawn on a bank account that belonged to the defendant’s grandparents. The defendant’s grandmother handled the grandparents’ bank account, and the checks were purportedly signed by her. Shortly after the defendant’s grandmother died, the defendant’s grandfather discovered their account was overdrawn and reported to the police that the checks written to the defendant were counterfeit. In a statement to police, the defendant maintained that the checks were authorized. After a bench trial, the trial court held the defendant’s statement was not credible and found her guilty of forgery. The Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
Devon N. Bagwell v. Noel R. Bagwell, III
This appeal arises from post-divorce proceedings. The trial court modified the parties’ permanent parenting plan for their minor child upon determining that a material change in circumstance had occurred and modification was in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Michael Brown
Defendant, Kevin Michael Brown, appeals his convictions for seven counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, seven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of unlawful photography and his effective sentence of nineteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor; (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s visiting adult pornographic websites and downloading adult pornography pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the admission of the evidence, when considered individually and cumulatively, was reversible error; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ginny Elizabeth Parker
In this appeal, we consider whether the evidence is sufficient to support convictions on five counts of forgery. The convictions relate to five checks payable to and cashed by the defendant that were drawn on a bank account that belonged to the defendant’s grandparents. The defendant’s grandmother handled the grandparents’ bank account, and the checks were purportedly signed by her. Shortly after the defendant’s grandmother died, the defendant’s grandfather discovered their account was overdrawn and reported to the police that the checks written to the defendant were counterfeit. In a statement to police, the defendant maintained that the checks were authorized. After a bench trial, the trial court held the defendant’s statement was not credible and found her guilty of forgery. The Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
In Re Samuel H. et al.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court found two grounds for termination: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also concluded that terminating Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. However, the trial court’s best interest analysis extensively addressed not only the circumstances of the children in the present case but also the circumstances of other children in an entirely different parental termination proceeding. We affirm the trial court’s findings as to the grounds for termination. We vacate, however, the trial court’s best interest determination, and we remand for the trial court to make a best interest determination for the children in the present case and findings appropriate to the present case. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Terrell Howard
The Defendant, Terrance Terrell Howard, was convicted by a Chester County jury of attempted first degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years’ incarceration, as a Range I, standard offender, with no release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted first degree murder and that his twenty-four-year sentence for that convictionis excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance Wilks v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Terrance Wilks, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |