Opinions

In Re Caleb B.
W2025-01239-COa-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Christy R. Little

A father filed a petition for a permanent parenting plan regarding a minor child. The child’s mother was in the process of moving with the child to Florida when the petition was filed. At the final hearing, the court ordered the mother to return the minor child to Tennessee and, after the mother chose to remain in Tennessee, entered a parenting plan designating the mother as the primary residential parent. The mother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its application of the parental relocation statute. We have determined that the parental relocation statute did not apply and affirm the trial court’s decision

State of Tennessee v. Vincent Johnson
M2026-01194-CCA-R8-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers; Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer; Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.

The Defendant, Vincent Johnson, seeks review of his continued pretrial custody. The Defendant is currently represented by appointed counsel in the trial court. He filed the instant pleading pro se, however. It has long been the rule that a defendant may not be represented by counsel and simultaneously proceed pro se on appeal before this Court. State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Parsons, 437 S.W.3d 457, 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011); Robinson v. State, No. W2024-01916-CCA-R3-PC, 2026 WL 1781863 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 22, 2026). Accordingly, the instant pro se pleading is hereby dismissed. Counsel may seek review of the Defendant’s custody status, if appropriate. Tenn. R. App. P. 8. Because it appears the Defendant has been declared indigent, costs are taxed to the State. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the Defendant, counsel of record and the trial court clerk.

State of Tennessee v. Thomas Odell Holcomb ex rel. Marianna Walls
M2026-01177-CCA-T10B-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers; Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer; Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.

This matter is before the Court upon the pro se petition of the Defendant, Thomas Odell Holcomb, for an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The petition is signed by the Defendant’s “next friend,” Marianna Walls. The Defendant did not attach to his petition a copy of a trial court order addressing any motion to recuse. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 2.03. Instead, he included a copy of a trial court order, entered on July 29, 2026, appointing counsel to represent him on a pending post-conviction petition. Thus, it is evident the Defendant is currently represented by counsel. Aside from the fact the petition is incomplete, Rule 10B, Section 1.01, specifically prohibits a party who is represented by counsel from filing a pro se motion to recuse. The same prohibition holds true for a party filing a pro se petition to appeal. See State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Parsons, 437 S.W.3d 457, 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011); Robinson v. State, No. W2024-01916-CCA-R3-PC, 2026 WL 1781863 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 22, 2026). Accordingly, the instant pro se petition is hereby denied

Fred Andrews et al. v. Joel Brown et al.
M2025-01207-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Adrienne Gilliam Fry

The trial court dismissed this private condemnation action, brought pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102, on summary judgment based upon its conclusion that the plaintiffs already had lawful access to their property. We have determined that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiffs had express easements giving them access to their property. Further, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiffs could have lawful access under another theory. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

Clifford Leon Houston v. Kristi M. Davis Et Al.
E2025-01812-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a complaint alleging a civil conspiracy for violations of civil rights based upon the fact that the defendant judges denied the plaintiff’s motion to recuse by order entered May 1, 2024. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, summons were never issued for service of process on the defendants, and the statute of limitations for a claim of civil conspiracy had run. We, however, do not get to the merits of the case but instead find that the plaintiff/appellant’s brief is profoundly deficient for it fails to comply with Rule 27(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in several material respects. Based on the appellant’s failure to substantially comply with Rule 27(a)(6)–(7) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the appellant has waived his right to an appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Katrina Allen v. Jackson Energy Authority, et al.
W2025-01029-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

This appeal involves a lawsuit filed against the chief financial officer of a public utility. The plaintiff alleges that the utility breached a contract for the provision of utility services. The plaintiff claims that she converted a billing statement she received from the utility into a negotiable instrument, which the utility should have accepted as payment. The plaintiff wrote “[p]ay to the order of Bearer,” the amount owed, and her own name on the statement and claimed the payment would be taken from interest accrued on her account. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and awarded the defendant attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand.

In Re UTMA Account of Lillian Gardner Dunavant v. Buchanan D. Dunavant
W2023-01787-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe Townsend

A party to a negotiated settlement agreement appeals the trial court’s approval of the agreement. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

LINDA RICKER v. CLARK BLUMENSTEIN
E2025-00915-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Douglas T. Jenkins, Chancellor

This appeal concerns whether a homeowner diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, now deceased, lacked capacity or was unduly influenced to execute a quitclaim deed transferring his house to himself and his nephew as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The homeowner’s sister—who served as his attorney-in-fact and was the sole beneficiary of his will—filed suit challenging the transaction. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the deed was validly executed. However, the trial court struck the survivorship language from the deed, concluding that the homeowner did not understand that specific element. On appeal, the homeowner’s sister seeks, among other relief, the total invalidation of the deed. The nephew argues that the trial court should have enforced the deed as written. We agree with the nephew and modify the trial court’s judgment insofar as it removed the survivorship language. In all other respects, we affirm.

Bradi Baker v. State of Tennessee
W2025-01490-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

The Petitioner, Bradi Baker,shot and killed her ex-husband in 2019. After her conviction for second degree murder was affirmedon appeal, she filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The Madison County Circuit Courtdenied thispetitionafter a hearing. She now appeals. Because the Petitioner’s due process claims were waived, and her ineffective assistance claims lacked proof of both deficiency and prejudice, she failed to meet her burden under the Post‑Conviction Procedure Act. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Jamen Lee Cowan
E2025-00664-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Stacy L. Street
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ryan M. Spitzer

The defendant, Jamen Lee Cowan, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation,
arguing that the original probation violation warrant filed in November 2018 was invalid
and that, in consequence, his four-year term of probation expired before the issuance of the
amended violation warrant in January 2025. Because the record reflects that the State
complied with the procedural requirements for the issuance of the 2018 probation violation
warrant, we conclude that the trial court did not err in concluding that the warrant tolled
the running of the Defendant’s term of probation. The Defendant does not challenge the
trial court’s findings as to the grounds supporting the revocation or the court’s order that
he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Darrell Aaron Cox
E2025-00929-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Stacy L. Street
Trial Court Judge: Judge Shawn C. Fry

The Defendant, Darrell Aaron Cox, appeals the sentence imposed for his Cumberland
County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded conviction of driving under the influence (DUI),
sixth offense, arguing that the trial court erred by denying all forms of alternative
sentencing. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a sentence of
full confinement, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Chaziah Jibril Woods and Ronnie Dale Sims, Jr.
M2025-00751-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

A Davidson County jury convicted both Chaziah Jibril Woods and Ronnie Dale Sims, Jr. of first degree felony murder (Count 1), first degree premeditated murder (Count 2), attempted first degree murder (Count 3), three counts of employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony (Counts 4, 7, and 9), attempted especially aggravated robbery (Count 5), and two counts of especially aggravated burglary (Counts 6 and 8). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-two years for Woods and an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-five years for Sims. Thereafter, Woods and Sims filed appeals, and their appeals were consolidated for appellate review. Woods argues on appeal: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from Sims’s trial; (3) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the substitute DNA analyst; (4) the trial court erred in admitting DNA evidence; (5) the trial court erred in admitting digital and message evidence; (6) the trial court erred in admitting exhibits and evidence against Woods that included communications, records, and contextual proof from Sims’s cell phone; (7) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on criminal responsibility and mere presence; (8) the trial court erred in admitting photographs and evidence depicting the victim’s gunshot wounds and post-mortem conditions; (9) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (10) the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to a new trial. Sims contends on appeal: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in admitting the call detail records from T- Mobile; and (3) the trial court violated his right of confrontation and his right to a fair trial when it allowed the State to present DNA evidence through a substitute witness, rather than through the original DNA testing analyst. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Count 1 and Count 2 for both Woods and Sims.

State of Tennessee v. David Pruett
W2025-00963-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Paula L. Skahan

The Defendant, David Pruett, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of rape of a child, a Class A felony; especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class
B felony; and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class D felony, and received an effective sentence of forty years in confinement. On appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that hissentence for rape of a child is
excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Nocomus Harris
W2025-01069-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carlyn L. Addison

After being convicted of first degree murder and tampering with the evidence, Nocomus Harris, Defendant, appealed. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s denial of a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. After a review, we determine Defendant has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for inadequate briefing. Additionally, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Cassen N. Jackson-Garrison
E2024-01828-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Matthew J. Wilson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword

Defendant, Cassen Jackson-Garrison, appeals his convictions for three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated statutory rape, and two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, for which he received an effective twenty-six-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for rape, sexual battery by an authority figure, and statutory rape by an authority figure; (2) the admission of evidence regarding the possibility of additional victims and the admission of evidence of grooming as violating Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) the exclusion of evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412; and (4) the admission of rebuttal testimony. Defendant also contends he is entitled to relief due to the cumulative effect of the errors. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Asata D. Lowe
E2025-01500-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge David R. Duggan

The Petitioner, Asata D. Lowe, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s summary
dismissal of his “Petition for Delayed Appeal.” On appeal, the Petitioner argues that
Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-13-202, -403, 40-30-102, Tennessee Rule of
Appellate Procedure 3, and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 are unconstitutional
as applied. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Nadine Brashears Garrett v. Marlon Antoine Garrett
W2025-00771-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carol J. Chumney

A husband appeals a final divorce decree asserting that the trial court improperly treated his veterans’ disability benefits as marital property. We have determined that the trial court did not consider the husband’s benefits as marital property and did not award the wife any of the benefits. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Larry Ray McBee
E2025-00754-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Stacy L. Street
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword

The Defendant, Larry Ray McBee, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury
conviction of felony murder, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to
suppress and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The State asserts
that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely, or, in the alternative, that the conviction
should be affirmed. Because the interest of justice does not support waiving the untimely
filing of the notice of appeal in this case, the appeal is dismissed.

Ugne Adams Aronson v. Michael Waller Et Al.
E2025-00606-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James H. Ripley

This appeal involves a petition to establish a boundary line. The parties own adjacent lots
in a subdivision and dispute the proper location of the shared northern corner. The
petitioner had her lot surveyed prior to the dispute. The surveyor located an artificial
monument at the disputed corner that was referenced in a survey completed in 1981 and
set the relevant boundary line in accordance with this monument. Later, the surveyor
returned to the property and found that the monument had been removed. The surveyor
placed a new monument in the same location. The respondents also had their lot surveyed.
The surveyor did not locate a monument where he determined the disputed corner to be
located and instead set a monument based on courses and distances listed in the 1981
survey. The chancery court determined that the survey performed by the petitioner’s
surveyor accurately reflected the boundary line at issue and found she owned the disputed
area. The respondents appeal. We affirm.

Angelica Maria Banales Rodriguez, et al. v. Slava Bosin
W2024-01798-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

This appeal concerns ownership interests in real property located at 3015 Dothan Street in Memphis, Tennessee. In 2013, the original owner, Reinhold Taylor, conveyed the property by recorded quitclaim deed to a revocable trust, of which he was the beneficiary. In 2017, Taylor ostensibly entered into a lease purchase agreement with the Appellees for the property despite no longer having any personal ownership in it. Subsequently, Taylor took out a loan from Appellant and the trust executed a deed of trust on the property as collateral for Taylor’s loan. When Taylor defaulted the loan, the trust transferred its ownership interest in the property to Appellant. Litigation ensued between Appellant and Appellees regarding the parties’ respective interests in the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, holding that their lease purchase agreement with Taylor was valid and enforceable against Appellant. Upon review, we conclude that Taylor had no ownership or possessory interest in the property to convey to Appellees at the time he signed the lease purchase agreement, and that Appellant’s ownership interest properly passed from the trust to him. As such, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

James Kenneth Benson Et Al. v. Wildcat Construction, LLC
E2025-00172-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James H. Ripley

After the closing on the sale of a custom house, disputes continued between a builder and
the purchasers. The disputes centered on the quality and amount of work performed by the
builder and outstanding payments due from the purchasers. The trial court referred the
matter to a special master, who heard detailed testimony from an expert witness for the
purchasers. The special master prepared a thorough report. The builder objected to parts
of the special master’s report, arguing that the special master should have excluded certain
testimony by the expert witness, but the trial court overruled those objections. We affirm.

Eric S. Robinson v. Staci L. McClellan Et Al.
E2025-00512-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Erwin Phillips II

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the judgment under
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. We affirm the trial court.

Joseph Cohen v. Bethany Cohen
M2026-00939-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J.B. Cox

In this Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B appeal, the husband filed a motion to recuse on April 29, 2026, based on statements made in hearings on April 30, 2025, and April 15, 2026. The complaints about statements from the April 30, 2025 hearing are untimely.  The complaints about the statements made on April 15, 2026, are timely, but do not require recusal. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion.

Gary W. Sutton v. State of Tennessee
E2026-00107-CCA-R10-PD
Authoring Judge: Judges Greenholtz, Sword, Street

The State of Tennessee has filed an application for extraordinary appeal, see Tenn.
R. App. P. 10, seeking review of the trial court’s January 16, 2026 order. That order denied
the State’s motion to dismiss the Petitioner’s petition to determine his ineligibility for
execution due to intellectual disability, on the ground that the petition is procedurally
barred. The State argues that extraordinary appeal is required for two reasons. First, it
argues that the trial court’s order constitutes a “plain and palpable abuse of discretion.”
Second, it argues that a hearing on the procedurally barred petition reflects a “fundamental
illegality.” Gilbert v. Wessels, 458 S.W.3d 895, 898 (Tenn. 2014).

State of Tennessee v. Robert James Tipler
W2024-01727-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kyle C. Atkins

Robert James Tipler, Defendant, was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for first degree murder, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon after an incident that resulted in the death of Ronnie Hines, the victim. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment because the State allegedly committed a Ferguson violation by failing to preserve police body camera footage and moved for recusal of the District Attorney General based on an allegation that the State influenced the medical examiner. The trial court denied the motions. At trial, Defendant sought to dismiss the case based on improper conduct by the State. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted Defendant as charged. As a result, Defendant was sentenced to life for the first degree murder conviction. The trial court merged the firearms convictions into a single count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced Defendant to ten years at thirty percent, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal 251 days after the denial of a motion for new trial. Because the interests of justice do not support the waiver of the timeliness of the notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed.