Opinions
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 | |
Virginia Williams v. Big R Enterprises, LLC ET AL.
Plaintiff has been involved in multiple suits in connection with a foreclosure upon two properties she purchased in an office complex. Most of these actions were resolved adversely to her position prior to the circuit court’s issuance of its ruling in this case. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in the present case based upon res judicata principles, and it imposed sanctions. Plaintiff argues that the circuit court violated her due process rights in doing so and that it erred in the manner in which it ruled upon her pending motions. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jonah Paul Anders v. Mayla Anders
In 2014, Husband filed for an annulment based on allegations of fraud by Wife; Wife denied the allegations but still sought a divorce. The trial court did not find any fraud that would invalidate the marriage and granted Wife the divorcein a 2016 decree. Husband appealed, and we affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Then in 2024, Husband filed a petition to reopen the case, asserting that he now had evidence to supporthis original fraud allegations.The trial court denied the petition, finding that Husband’s attempt to relitigate the issues raised in the first appeal was barred by res judicata. Husband has again appealed. Because Husband’s petition to reopen the case, by all accounts a motion for relief from a final judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, was untimely, we affirm. Wife is awarded her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this frivolous appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Caroline Long Kilpatrick v. Connor Lewis Kilpatrick
In this post-divorce action to modify child support, Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s: (1) calculation of Appellee/Father’s gross income; (2) determination that she was willfully underemployed; (3) imputation of income to her; (4) exclusion of summer work related childcare expenses from the child support worksheet; (5) denial of an upward deviation; and (6) denial of her request for attorney’s fees. Both parties seek an award of appellate attorney’s fees. Because we determine that the trial court improperly excluded certain sources of income from its calculation of Father’s gross income, we vacate Father’s child support obligation. We reverse the trial court’s denial of Mother’s attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s conclusions that Mother was willfully underemployed and its imputation of income to her as well as its exclusion of summer work-related childcare expenses and its denial of an upward deviation. Mother’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. Father’s request for same is denied. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan Andres Rodriguez Torres
Defendant, Juan Andres Rodriguez Torres, appeals the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and alternative sentencing following his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell A. Grady
Defendant, Darrell A. Grady, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony, and the trial court imposed a Range II, twelve-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction based on the facts and based on the trial court’s error in its instructions to the jury. He also claims the trial court’s denial of a community corrections sentence was erroneous and violated the federal and state constitutions against cruel and unusual punishment. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Allen
The Defendant, James Edward Allen, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Girtes L. Stewart, Jr.
The Defendant, Girtes L. Stewart, Jr., was convicted in the Gibson County Circuit Court of attempted first degree, a Class A felony; employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony; and seven counts of reckless endangermentwith a deadly weapon,a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that he servean effective sentence of twenty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support six of hisreckless endangerment convictions and that the trial court erred indenying his request to dismiss the charges due tolost or destroyed evidence pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals |