Opinions
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 | |
Michael Eugene St. Clair v. State of Tennessee et al.
On December 11, 2002, Michael Eugene St. Clair (“the petitioner”) entered a guilty plea to one count of rape in Davidson County, Tennessee. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the petitioner received an eight-year sentence to be served on probation. The special conditions section of the judgment included “sex offender treatment” and “sex offender registry,” but the judgment did not include the condition of community supervision for life mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-524. The petitioner ultimately violated his probation and was ordered to serve his sentence in confinement. On June 4, 2010, the petitioner was released from Tennessee Department of Correction custody. The petitioner completed the required sex offender registry, which specified that the petitioner had “no supervised release.” On August 16, 2010, however, the Davidson County Criminal Court entered a “Corrected Judgment,” which included community supervision for life as a special condition. On September 20, 2024, the petitioner, a resident of Sumner County, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Williamson County, asserting that his liberty has been unlawfully restrained under a void judgment, citing the “Corrected Judgment. ”The State moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Williamson County was not the proper venue and that the petitioner had failed to include a copy of the guilty plea transcript. The habeas court granted the State’s motion to dismiss on those two procedural grounds. The petitioner appealed, contending that the habeas court erred in dismissing the petition on the two procedural grounds. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of the petition on those two grounds. The court then concluded, sua sponte, that the petitioner would not be entitled to relief on the merits of his claim. The petitioner has filed an application for permission to appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure. In the application, the petitioner maintains that the habeas court erred in dismissing his petition. The petitioner also argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in addressing the merits of his petition despite affirming dismissal of the petition on the two procedural grounds addressed by the habeas court. Upon consideration of the application for permission to appeal and the record before us, the application is granted in part and denied in part. As to the portion of the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals that affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of the petition on the two procedural grounds, we deny the application for permission to appeal. Accordingly, we leave that portion of the opinion and judgment—and, therefore, the habeas court’s dismissal of the petition—undisturbed. The denial of review as to the dismissal on the two procedural grounds is, to the extent authorized by law, without prejudice to refiling a compliant petition in a proper venue. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD CLARENCE LAWHORN
The pro se Petitioner has filed an application for extraordinary appeal, see Tenn. R. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JULIUS GIONNI GODBOLT-ROSERIE
The pro se Defendant, Julius Gionni Godbolt-Roserie, has filed an application for |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Catherine Callaway LaForce v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al.
This is an action for access to records from a homicide investigation assigned to the “cold case” section of the Metropolitan Police Department of Nashville and Davidson County (“MNPD”). The petitioner sought, among other things, all reports in the case file, all E-911 recordings in the file, and the personnel records of any employee who authored a report or memo in the file. MNPD denied the request in full because the investigation was still open. Petitioner then commenced this action against MNPD and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) to compel them to comply with the records request. Petitioner argued that the records she requested were not related to a “pending or contemplated” criminal action because MNPD had no active leads and had transferred the investigation to the Cold Case Section. After conducting an evidentiary hearing based on declarations, the trial court ordered Metro to disclose the E-911 records, but it held that MNPD had no duty to produce the personnel records because the request was not sufficiently detailed. Relying on the decision in Tennessean v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 485 S.W.3d 857 (Tenn. 2016), the trial court concluded that the remaining records were exempt from disclosure under the state law exception to the Tennessee Public Records Act and under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. The court also denied the petitioner’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Scott Patrick Werner, et al. v. De'Anthony Melton
This appeal arises from claims of negligence and negligence per se stemming from a dog bite. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff after the defendant failed to respond to the lawsuit. Nine months after the entry of the final order, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. The defendant claimed that he had not been served, had not been aware of the lawsuit, and the facts upon which summary judgment had been granted were false. The trial court denied the motion to set aside. The defendant appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christian Pitts
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Christian Pitts, of second degree murder and of being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and challenges the trial court’s self defense instruction that included the “duty to retreat” language. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |