APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal follows post-divorce proceedings in which one parent asked for permission to relocate with her children while the other parent asked to modify the permanent parenting plan. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the request to relocate and modified the parenting plan. The relocating parent appeals, but due to deficiencies in her briefing, her issues have been waived.

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.

The Defendant, Lee Allen Denton, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that (1) the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to provide a neutral and detached hearing body and instead applying a blanket policy of total revocation; (2) the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by increasing his release eligibi1ity percentage from sixty percent to one hundred percent through a judge-signed mittimus; and (3) the trial court failed to properly apply the required two-step analysis for probation revocation. After review, we affirm the trial court's finding that the Defendant violated his probation and the revocation of probation; however, the trial court failed to articulate sufficient findings regarding the consequences imposed, as required by State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2022). Because the record is insufficiently developed for meaningful de novo review, we remand for entry of findings on the record consistent with Dagnan.

The Petitioner, Timothy P. Guilfoy, was convicted in 2011 of one count of rape of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to forty years. In 2024, the Petitioner filed an untimely petition for writ of error coram nobis, his second, alleging newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the newly discovered evidence did not provide clear and convincing proof of actual innocence, which is required to toll the one-year statute of limitations on such petitions. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the trial court erred when it denied his petition for relief because, in doing so, the court: (1) misapplied Clardy v. State, 691 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. 2024); (2) failed to correctly analyze the new evidence and logically determine whether it established his actual innocence; (3) made improper credibility determinations and factual findings; (4) violated due process by dismissing the petition without considering preserved federal constitutional claims; and (5) failed to provide a meaningful state forum to adjudicate his preserved federal claims. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Keldrick Taylor, Petitioner, appeals after the post-conviction court denied relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Petitioner’s failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Tennessee Department of Revenue audited a business’s sales tax returns for a three year period and then issued the business a proposed assessment for underreported and unpaid sales taxes. When the business failed to pay the tax assessment, the Department of Revenue issued letters of personal assessment to the owners of the business to hold them personally liable for the unpaid tax assessment pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1 1443(a). After an informal conference requested by the owners, the Department of Revenue affirmed the personal assessments. One of the owners then filed a complaint in chancery court to challenge the assessment. The Department of Revenue filed a countercomplaint, seeking to hold the owner personally liable for the business’s tax assessment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-1443(a). The Department of Revenue filed a motion for summary judgment on its countercomplaint, which the chancery court granted. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Billy R. Boyd, Defendant, seeks review of the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Even though Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal, we waive the timeliness in the interest of justice. However, because we determine Defendant failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Christina N. Powell, appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 for reduction of the sentence imposed following the revocation of her community corrections for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine. She argues that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings on the record to support its denial of her Rule 35 motion and that this court should reinstate her community corrections sentence. Because the record sufficiently supports the trial court’s denial of Rule 35 relief, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children based upon the statutory grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, the persistence of conditions which led to removal, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. A panel of this court reversed the trial court’s initial determination, holding that the petitioners proved no statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re Serenity S., No. M2022-01091-COA R3-PT, 2023 WL 4884040 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2023) (“Serenity I”). Upon remand from this court, the petitioners amended their termination petition to include the statutory ground of abandonment. The trial court conducted a new hearing and found that clear and convincing evidence established abandonment by failure to remit child support and the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court also found that clear and convincing evidence established that the termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We now reverse and vacate the order of termination, holding that the petitioners have again proved no statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.

The Defendant, Jack Cameron Biller, requests permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. The Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence. The State opposes the application. The Court previously granted the Defendant’s request to file a limited reply to the State’s answer. Upon initial review of those filings, the Court ordered a limited remand to the trial court for further consideration. The trial court has since amended its order granting the interlocutory appeal. Having now reconsidered the matter in light of that amended order, the Court hereby denies the application for permission to appeal for the reasons stated below.

On July 10, 2026, this Court stayed review of the Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 motion filed by the Defendant, Kortney Dalon Ball, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further consideration. The trial court subsequently granted the Defendant bond. Thus, the Defendant did not renew his Rule 8 motion before this Court. Accordingly, the stay is lifted, and this appeal is hereby dismissed as moot. Costs are taxed to the State.

The Defendant, Torrian Seantel Bishop, negotiated a plea agreement with the State under which he entered a conditional guilty plea to unlawful possession of a weapon and theft of property but reserved for appellate review a certified question, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding whether officers had probable cause to search his car. See State v. Torrian Seantel Bishop, No. W2023-00713-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 1564346 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2024) (Bishop I),case remanded (Tenn. Aug. 27, 2024). We concluded that the certified question was dispositive and that the officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the Defendant’s car based upon the officer’s smelling the odor of marijuana in the Defendant’s car. The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded the case for us to reconsider our decision in light of its decision in State v. Green, holding that the smell of marijuana could be considered as a factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis when determining whether an officer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of acar.697 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Tenn. 2024). Upon reconsideration, we determined that the certified question was not dispositive and dismissed the appeal. See State v. Torrian Seantel Bishop, No. W2023-00713-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 4798895, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2024)(Bishop II), perm. app. granted(Tenn. Mar.14, 2025). On appeal of that decision, our supreme court clarified the requirements for certified questions of law reserved for appeal as part of a conditional guilty plea, reversed our opinion in Bishop II, and remanded the case for this court to consider the merits of the certified question. See State v. Bishop, ---S.W.3d---, No. W2023-00713-SC-R11-CD, 2026 WL 2329478(Tenn. 2026)(Bishop III). Upon this remand, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, William Edward Farmer, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition seeking
post-conviction relief from his 2025 guilty-pleaded conviction for possession of a firearm
by a person convicted of a felony crime of violence, for which he is serving an eight-year
sentence in confinement. The post-conviction court concluded that Petitioner did not raise
a colorable claim for relief. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction
court.

The Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board reversed the termination of the appellee’s
employment with the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office. The trial court affirmed the decision
to reinstate the appellee and ordered that he be paid as if he had returned to work on the
date contemplated by the Merit Board. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
decision to reinstate the appellee was supported by substantial and material evidence and
was neither arbitrary nor capricious. We therefore affirm the reinstatement. Because the
order overturning the appellee’s termination did not contain an explicit return-to-work date,
we vacate the trial court’s ruling that the appellee would be paid from a date certain, and
remand the issue for consideration by the Merit Board.

The Defendant, Ryon Ka’Brayle Easley, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, second degree murder, assault, and four counts of aggravated assault, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty-one years as a Range I offender in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his second degree murder conviction; (2) whether the doctrine of transferred intent was misapplied, making his conviction for the second degree murder of the victim inconsistent with his conviction for the attempted voluntary manslaughter of his alleged intended victim;(3) whether the trial court’s self-defense instruction imposed an improper duty to retreat; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying access to a forensic cell phone expert; and (5)whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the State’s duty to preserve evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Randy Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and tampering with evidence, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his request for jury instructions on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter and on the defense of alibi. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but remand this case for entry of corrected judgments of conviction consistent with this opinion.

Appellants have appealed an order of the Shelby County Chancery Court that was entered
on February 18, 2026. 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.

Defendant, Eric Austin Byrd, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court convictions for
driving under the influence (DUI), failure to maintain lane, and failure to exercise due care,
for which he received an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all
but 180 days suspended to supervised probation. Defendant asserts that (1) the trial court
erred by limiting Defendant’s cross-examination of Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP)
Sergeant Ricky Powers regarding his training and understanding of field sobriety tests
(FSTs); and (2) the trial court erred during sentencing by improperly considering the Knox
County District Attorney’s Facebook post as evidence of general deterrence and by
considering his pending first degree murder charge in Loudon County. Following a
thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Buddy Livesay, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions
of evading arrest, criminal impersonation, and unlawful possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, arguing that the trial court by erred
by denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained following what he believes to be
an unconstitutional traffic stop, by instructing the jury that his out-of-state conviction
qualified as a felony crime of violence rather than submitting the issue to the jury, and by
ordering a sentence of full confinement. We hold that (1) the trial court did not err by
denying the motion to suppress; (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the
Defendant’s out-of-state conviction qualified as a crime of violence rather than submitting
that issue, with proper instructions, to the jury, and the error cannot be classified as
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
ordering a sentence of full confinement. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant’s
conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony
crime of violence and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on that charge but
affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The Defendant, Kyle Dwight Shaddon, pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for possessing over 379 images of child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”). After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to partially consecutive sentencing for a total effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his guilty plea is not valid because it was not written and signed, as required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e). He further contends that the trial court erred when it ordered partial consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Alex Bernard Campbell, appeals the revocation of his 11-month, 29-daycommunity corrections sentence, arguing that there was no substantial evidence in support of the trial court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his probation by committing an aggravated domestic assault. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Sevier County jury convicted the defendant, Allan Hunt, of sexual battery, for which he
received a sentence of two years with one year of incarceration and the remainder of the
term suspended to probation. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at
trial was insufficient to support his conviction. After reviewing the record and considering
the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Nicholas Peter Merrill, pled guilty to one count of aggravated child neglect
of a child under eight years of age, a Class A felony, and following a sentencing hearing,
the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-three years to be served at 100%. On appeal,
the defendant argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court does not comport with the
purposes and principles of sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the
parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Brandon Johnson, has filed a petition for an accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2, seeking review of the trial court’s August 26, 2026 order denying the Petitioner’s motion for recusal of the trial court in his pending coram nobis proceedings. Following our de novo review, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the Petitioner’s motion for recusal.

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.