APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiff-appellant sued the defendant-appellee alleging that the defendant engaged in
pregnancy discrimination when it terminated the plaintiff’s full-time employment. The
trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff
did not rebut the defendant’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
decision. We conclude that the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of specific facts in the
record that could lead a rational trier of fact to find in her favor regarding whether the
defendant’s proffered reasons for her termination were pretextual. Accordingly, we reverse
the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in the defendant’s favor.

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.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The chancery court found clear and
convincing evidence of four statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in
the children’s best interest. Based on our review, we conclude that the evidence was less
than clear and convincing for two of the statutory grounds relied on by the chancery court.
However, because the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the
remaining grounds for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest, we
affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

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.

This is a breach of contract action in which the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant
auctioneer failed to fulfill the terms of the contract in auctioning a baseball card collection.
The defendant auctioneer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court
denied the motion to dismiss but granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant
to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We granted permission to appeal
and now affirm the decision of the trial court.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal arises from a legal malpractice action which the trial court dismissed on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.07 motion for additional time to conduct discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion. The plaintiff also contends the court erred in summarily dismissing his complaint on multiple grounds including the plaintiff’s failure to present expert testimony to support his claim of legal malpractice. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

This is a probation violation matter wherein Defendant, James Courtney Shane, appeals both the determination of a violation and the determination of a full revocation consequence. In April 2025, Defendant pled guilty to one count of abuse of an elderly or vulnerable adult and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective eight-year sentence and placed Defendant on supervised probation. Within two months Defendant was arrested on a new felony charge. The trial court subsequently revoked Defendant’s probation in full and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the probation violation warrant was invalid because the corresponding affidavit contained procedural errors, (2)the trial court erred by admitting a TBI lab report without making the proper hearsay findings of good cause and reliability, and (3) the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings in its consequence determination pursuant to State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Defendant waived his first issue during oral argument. After review, we conclude the admission of the TBI lab report was error, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We also conclude the record is not sufficiently developed for this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the consequence determination. We, therefore, vacate the revocation orders and remand the case to the trial court for further findings.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s and father’s parental rights to six of
their minor children. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence the ground of
severe child abuse as to both parents based on a prior juvenile court order concluding that
certain of the children were victims of severe child abuse when the parents knowingly
failed to protect them from sexual abuse by the parents’ eldest child. The trial court also
found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of their parental rights was in the
children’s best interests. On appeal, the parents challenge the best interests determination,
arguing primarily that the trial court placed undue weight on their continued denial of the
abuse. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this case involving an issue of first impression pertaining to the exclusion of evidence of a victim’s biological sex, Defendant, Samuel Ward, Jr., was convicted by a Shelby County jury of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced Defendant to six years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues 1) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s assigned sex at birth; 2) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction; 3) it was plain error for the State to make improper comments during its closing argument; 4) the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to impeach a State’s witness; and 5) the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence of incarceration and denying an alternative sentence. Becausewe conclude that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to exclude evidence of the victim’s biological sex, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.

This appeal arises from the termination of parental rights of the parents of DeAngelo N.
and Daimen N. The trial court terminated their parental rights on the grounds of
abandonment, severe child abuse, persistence of conditions, and lack of willingness or
ability to assume custody, and the finding that termination was in the best interests of the
children. Both parents appeal, arguing that the trial court’s findings regarding the grounds
for termination were in error and that termination of their parental rights was not in the
children’s best interest. We vacate the trial court’s ruling regarding the ground of severe
abuse based on lack of due process, because that ground was not asserted in the pleadings.
We also reverse the trial court’s ruling that the ground of persistence of conditions was
proven, finding the evidence insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that ground.
We affirm the trial court’s finding that two other grounds for termination were proven, and
the termination of the parents’ rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we
affirm the decision to terminate both parents’ parental rights.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Tony Manning, of one count of aggravated
assault, one count of rape, and two counts of attempted rape. The trial court imposed an
effective sentence of eight years. The Defendant’s trial counsel filed an untimely motion
for new trial, which the trial court dismissed. The Defendant appealed, and this court
dismissed his appeal as untimely. The Defendant then filed a pro se petition for relief from
conviction or sentence. The trial court appointed the Defendant counsel, who filed a
motion requesting permission to file a delayed motion for a new trial. The trial court
granted this motion, and counsel filed a delayed motion for a new trial based on a claim of
insufficient evidence. The trial court denied the motion. The Defendant now appeals,
maintaining that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we
affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant, Earl Lee Shaffer, of rape. At sentencing,
the trial court relied on two of the Defendant’s prior New Hampshire convictions to
enhance him to a Range II offender, and then it imposed a sentence of sixteen years. The
Defendant appeals his sentence, arguing the trial court erred in classifying one of his prior
New Hampshire convictions as a felony to support a Range II offender status. After review,
we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for resentencing.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Petitioner, Thomas N. Allen, of premeditated first
degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison. The Petitioner
unsuccessfully challenged his conviction by direct appeal, petition for post-conviction
relief, a petition for writ of error coram nobis, a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus,
and a petition for forensic DNA analysis. The Petitioner filed a second petition for forensic
DNA analysis, which renewed his request to test the skull, loose teeth, and hair of the
victim. The lower court summarily dismissed this petition based upon the fact that it had
previously ruled on this same DNA testing request. The Petitioner appeals, contending the
lower court erred. We affirm the trial court.

Appellant sought to vacate the trial court’s extension of a 2007 judgment for a debt owed to Appellee by filing consecutive Rule 60.02 motions. The trial court denied the second motion on its conclusion that the motion was barred by res judicata. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. After evaluating the trial court’s ruling under the de novo standard of review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for recusal.

The Defendant, Wiltha Brown, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s
probation revocation for his six-year sentence for aggravated burglary. On appeal, he
contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentence into execution
after he was found to have violated multiple rules of probation, rather than returning him
to probation conditioned upon mental health and substance abuse treatment. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, John Wesley McElhiney, pled nolo contendere to one count each of aggravated burglary, burglary of an automobile, and attempted aggravated burglary. As a condition of his plea, the parties agreed that the defendant would receive an effective sentence of ten years or less as a Range III offender with the length of each sentence and manner of the service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective ten years’ confinement with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Defendant, Ernest Russell, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of theft of a firearm valued at less than $2,500and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, for which he received an effective sentence ofthirty years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jared Payton, Defendant, was serving a sixteen-year sentence on supervised probation when he appeared before the trial court on his second probation revocation hearing. The probation warrant alleged a “Graduated Zero Tolerance Violation,” specifically that Defendant failed to consistently comply with his sex offender treatment program. After a hearing, the trial court fully revoked Defendant’s probation. Defendant appeals, arguing (1) his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial relied on an out-of-court statement without making the proper findings,(2) the trial court abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily in revoking Defendant’s probation in full, and (3) his original sixteen-year probationary sentence was illegal and should be remedied pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Saidrick Pewitte, requestspermission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. He seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence.The State opposes the application. Upon review, the Court hereby denies the application for the reasons stated below.

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.

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.

The Defendant, Ryan Kelley McElrath, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court in case number 24-874 to three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, a Class B felony, and two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent terms of nine years for each statutory rape by an authority figure conviction and concurrent terms of three years for each sexual battery by an authority figure conviction and ordered that the effective three-year sentence be served consecutively to the effective nine-year sentence, for a total effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in applying the particularly-vulnerable-victim enhancement factor and in ordering consecutive sentences. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.