Opinions
Deirdre Michelle Wilson v. Regions Bank
Plaintiff/Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B seeking review of the trial court’s order denying her motion to recuse. Finding no evidence of bias requiring recusal, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Steven Borel
Defendant, Michael Steven Borel, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s order fully revoking his sentence of probation. On appeal, Defendant contends his conduct amounted only to a technical violation and the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence incarcerated. After review, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking Defendant’s probationary sentence for his felony conviction following a finding of a first technical probation violation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and reinstate Defendant’s probation for the felony offense. Asto Defendant’s probated misdemeanor sentences however, following our de novo review, we affirm the trial court’s full revocation of probation. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devonta Curry
Devonta Curry, Movant,filed a pro se motion titled “Motion for Rule 36.1 Correction of Illegal Sentence.” The trial court summarily denied the motion for failure to state a colorable claim. We affirm the trial court’s judgment but remand for entry of corrected judgments of conviction for Counts 1-7 in Case No. 18-551,reflecting that Movant was convicted by a jury. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Gary Blankenship, II
The Defendant, Charles Gary Blankenship, II, has filed a pro se application for extraordinary appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 10, seeking review of the trial court’s August 24, 2026 capias for failure to appear. We have determined that a response from the State is not necessary in this matter. Tenn. R. App. P. 10(d). Upon review of the application and its supporting documents, we conclude that the Defendant has not demonstrated grounds for extraordinary relief under Rule 10. Accordingly, the application is DENIED. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Cooper
The Defendant, Jason Cooper, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction of |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Samuel v. State of Tennessee
Tony Samuel, Petitioner, filed a pro se petition that the trial court construed as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed “to plead with particularity both the substance of the newly discovered evidence and the factual basis for tolling the statute of limitations. ”Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William B. Morton
Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant, William B. Morton, appeals a certified question of law related to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the results of blood alcohol testing performed on a sample of his blood obtained via search warrant. Following our de novo review of the question presented and our examination of the record, we conclude that the certified question fails to identify the scope and limits of the issue presented and is not dispositive of the case. Thus, in keeping with the recent directive of our supreme court, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to provide the Defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Chadwick Vaughn
The Defendant, James Chadwick Vaughn, pled guilty in the Criminal Court for Sumner County to three Class D felonies and two misdemeanors. The plea petition provided that the trial court would determine the specific sentence, within a range of eight to twelve years for the felony convictions, with all sentences served concurrently. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twelve years in confinement and ordered the Defendant to participate in a rehabilitative program as a condition of parole. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court committed plain error by classifying the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender; (2) whether the trial court erred by imposing a condition of parole; and (3) whether the Defendant’s plea was valid and complied with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Upon our review, we respectfully vacate the parole condition and remand the case for entry of corrected judgments. We further conclude that we lack authority to review the validity of the Defendant’s guilty plea. We respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
JAMES STAMPER v. KYLE A. MILLER ET AL.
This is a negligence action arising from an accident wherein the plaintiff pedestrian was |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Celso Valentin Ferto
Defendant, Celso Valentin Ferto, appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of solicitation of a minor, arguing (1) the trial court erred in admitting forensic interviews pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123, (2) the admission of the forensic videos violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Sims v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eric Sims, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged in effective assistance of trial counsel. The Petitioner claims on appeal that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition in that he established in effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel 1) stipulated to the Petitioner’s gang affiliation;2) failed to file a motion to suppress an unduly suggestive photographic lineup;and3) failed to adequately cross-examine and impeach three of the State’s witnesses. He also argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief under the cumulative error doctrine. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment but remand for entry of corrected judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andre Lemaurio Johnson-el v. Caren Gabriel d/b/a Former CEO of Ascend Federal Credit Union
The plaintiff appeals a final order dismissing his complaint. Because the plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Appellate Court within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Harshal Dilip Trivedi v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Harshal Dilip Trivedi, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his motion to recuse. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gena Kilgore
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Gena Kilgore, of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $2,500.Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a two-year term of judicial diversion and ordered the Defendant to pay $2,500 in restitution. The Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s denial of her request to sit at counsel table during her trial. Because we conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we dismiss it. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Markee Mosley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Tony Markee Mosley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we conclude that a self-represented criminal defendant has no constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel from an attorney acting in a standby or advisory role, and because trial counsel provided effective assistance while actively representing the petitioner, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Caleb James Fryfogle
The defendant, Caleb James Fryfogle, was convicted by a Maury County jury of two counts of driving under the influence and one count of driving without a license for which he received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to probation after service of four days incarceration and suspension of his license for a year. Additionally, as a result of his convictions, the defendant’s license was suspended for a year. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in finding that he voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw. Following our review of the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
BFI Waste Services, LLC, et al. v. Recovery Associates Group, LLC, et al.
In this interlocutory appeal, two of the defendants appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and good faith certificate requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. We affirm the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy E. Henderlight, Jr. v. David Henderlight et al.
This litigation arises from a dispute between cousins who started a business together. During discovery, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to respond in good faith to the defendants’ requests for admission and deemed all requests admitted. Shortly thereafter, the court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s attorney leave to withdraw. The defendants/counter-plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted by and against them, relying on the admissions as well as declarations they submitted. The plaintiff failed to file any response to the motions for summary judgment. However, he did appear pro se at the summary judgment hearing and claimed that he was unaware of the summary judgment motions until two days earlier because he did not know that his email address had been provided to opposing counsel and the court, and he had not checked that email since his counsel withdrew. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to testify as to these facts. However, the court ultimately found that the plaintiff was properly served with the motions and had notice of the hearing date. Considering the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of the motions for summary judgment, in addition to the plaintiff’s admissions and his failure to respond to the statements of material facts, the court found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Thus, the trial court dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiff and also granted the defendant/counter plaintiffs damages on their counterclaims. The plaintiff retained counsel and timely filed a motion to alter or amend, asserting that his failure to respond to the summary judgment motions was due to excusable neglect. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s proffered excuse was a tactic for delay, he was not credible, and he acted intentionally. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Rosanne S. Feltus v. Douglas B. Wright
During a divorce proceeding, a husband and wife signed a marital dissolution agreement that provided two trusts they had previously formed would be terminated, and the assets distributed to the wife. However, neither the trustee nor the two trust beneficiaries were made parties to the divorce proceeding, and the trusts remained in existence for several years. The wife filed a lawsuit in circuit court and named the trustee and other beneficiaries as defendants. Default judgments were entered against each defendant. The trustee filed a motion to set aside the judgment that was granted. The wife non-suited the circuit court action as to the trustee and filed a lawsuit against him in chancery court. The trustee filed an answer and countercomplaint in which he sought an award of trustee’s fees and attorneys’ fees. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The chancery court entered an order granting the trustee’s motion for summary judgment and later awarded him trustee’s fees and attorneys’ fees. The wife appeals. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
C. Randolph Brown, by and through his attorney-in-fact Stuart Brown, and Stuart Brown, individually v. Fifth Third Bank
This appeal arises from a suit filed by a borrower and his son against a mortgage lender in an attempt to avoid a foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs alleged that the lender breached a settlement agreement the parties entered into by unreasonably imposing an escrow account and by failing to provide a required notification to credit reporting agencies. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the lender on both claims and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kortney Ball
This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Kortney Ball, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his motion to recuse. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Cornelius Baylis
During a sting operation, Anthony Cornelius Baylis solicited sex from an undercover officer posing as a sixteen-year-old girl, encouraged her to come to Knoxville so that she could charge higher rates, and offered to be her “sponsor.” A jury convicted Baylis of commercial sex trafficking under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-309 (2018 & Supp. 2020). Baylis argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. To resolve Baylis’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we must determine whether section 39-13-309 proscribes the attempted sex trafficking of a law enforcement officer posing as a minor during a sting operation when there is no evidence of coercion or deception. We conclude that it does, so we affirm Baylis’s conviction and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Monroe | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Calandra Carina Clark
The defendant, Calandra Carina Clark, was convicted by a Madison County jury of theft of property greater than $10,000, but less than $60,000, for which she received a nine-year sentence suspended to supervised probation. She appeals the judgment of the trial court based on the admission of hearsay evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, improper argument by the State, and cumulative error. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarett Wilson
Defendant, Jarett Wilson, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a violation of probation warrant and subsequent probation revocation. Defendant contends he was denied the right to a speedy trial and the trial court should have dismissed the probation violation warrant; the trial court failed to place adequate findings on the record to support its decision to revoke Defendant’s probation; and one of Defendant’s sentences had expired prior to the revocation and should be removed from the revocation order. After a review, we determine that Defendant’s sentence in case number 18-640 had already expired and was not subject to revocation. Accordingly, we vacate the revocation order in that case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in case number 18 727, but because the trial court made insufficient findings as to its consequence determination, we remand for further findings. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Krag McAllister
The Defendant, Brian Krag McAllister, was convicted in the Campbell County Criminal |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals |