State of Tennessee v. Demetrius A. Brooks
The defendant, Demetrius A. Brooks, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his eight-year sentence for his guilty-pleaded convictions of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Marquell Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Brandon Marquell Brown, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, challenging his guilty-pleaded convictions for two counts of coercion of a witness and one count of aggravated assault. The Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, the Petitioner alleges that (1) his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and prepare the Petitioner’s cases by interviewing pertinent witnesses and for failing to meet with the Petitioner and review discovery with him. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Miller
The Defendant, Jarvis Miller, appeals his twenty-five-year sentence at 100 percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) for his second degree murder conviction. Specifically, he challenges the length and manner of his sentence as excessive because the trial court (1) failed to mitigate the Defendant’s sentence based on “mistakenly recollected” facts from trial; (2) misapplied and gave improper weight to two enhancement factors; and (3) failed to give meaningful consideration to imposing an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rickie Lumley
After a 2022 bench trial, the trial court convicted the Defendant, Rickie Lumley, of felony evading arrest, and subsequently sentenced him as a Career Offender to twelve years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his Class D felony conviction for felony evading arrest because his flight did not create a risk of death or injury to innocent bystanders or other third parties. He contends that his conviction should have only been for a Class E felony. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willis Holloway
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Willis Holloway, of two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to 135 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. After an unsuccessful appeal, post-conviction filing, and extraordinary relief filing, in December 2022, the Defendant filed a Rule 36.1 motion challenging an unconstitutional jury instruction. He then filed a supplemental motion claiming “actual innocence.” The trial court denied his Rule 36.1 motion. The Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied, and the Petitioner now appeals. The State asserts that, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), the appeal is untimely. After review, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gardtrella Marie Day-Knowles
The Appellant, Gardtrella Marie Day-Knowles, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of neglect of an impaired adult, for which she received a sentence of seven years’ supervised probation. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-6-117 (2017) (amended 2019, repealed 2020). On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred by: (1) allowing witnesses to describe conditions of animal neglect in her home; (2) refusing to redact an unfairly prejudicial comment from the victim’s medical records; and (3) allowing a witness to testify about her memory of the contents of a report under the public records hearsay exception. After review, we conclude there was no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andre Terry v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Andre Terry, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard A. Petersen v. Margaret E. Georgiades et al.
This is an action to rescind a quitclaim deed conveyed pursuant to a durable general power of attorney. On August 1, 2006, Richard Petersen (“Plaintiff”) appointed his sister, Margaret Georgiades (“Defendant”) as his attorney-in-fact. The power of attorney was recorded on July 8, 2009. In April 2010, Defendant conveyed, via quitclaim deed, one-half of Plaintiff’s undivided interest in his residence to herself for no consideration. Plaintiff contends that he did not discover the transfer until the fall of 2020, at which time he revoked Defendant’s power of attorney. Then, on February 4, 2021, he filed suit against Defendant to rescind the conveyance on the basis that the deed was void ab initio as the power of attorney did not authorize Defendant to make gifts or transfers “without consideration to anyone.” He also contended that the conveyance should be set aside because Defendant’s conduct “constitutes a clear breach of the fiduciary duty” she owed to Plaintiff as his attorney-in-fact. For her part, Defendant contends that the action is barred by the ten-year statute of limitations. She also contends that Plaintiff instructed her to make the conveyance and that he subsequently told others that he had consented to the conveyance. Following discovery, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the deed was void ab initio. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the power of attorney did not grant Defendant “the authority to transfer [Plaintiff’s] property by gift to her or to any third party” and, on this basis, declared the deed “void ab initio and to have no effect whatsoever.” This appeal followed. As provided by Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-6- 110(a), because the power of attorney expressly authorized Defendant “[t]o exercise or perform any act, power, duty, right or obligation whatsoever that I now have,” Defendant had “the power and authority to make gifts, in any amount, of any of the principal’s property, to any individuals, . . . in accordance with the principal’s personal history of making or joining in the making of lifetime gifts.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-6-110(a). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Because the trial court did not rule on other issues, including, inter alia, whether Plaintiff’s claim is time barred, whether Plaintiff approved of the conveyance, whether the gift was in accordance with Plaintiff’s history of making lifetime gifts, and/or whether the conveyance constitutes a breach of Defendant’s fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Orson E. Steward v. Regent Homes, LLC et al.
This is an appeal by a pro se appellant. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief on appeal, we conclude that he waived consideration of any issues on appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Valerie Ann Dollar
The Defendant, Valerie Ann Dollar, was convicted by a Johnson County Criminal Court |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Renardo Dixon
The Defendant, Renardo Dixon, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and kidnapping, both Class C felonies, in exchange for concurrent sentences of eight years at 30% release eligibility, with the service left to the trial court’s determination. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for probation and ordered that he serve his sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction consecutively to his sentence in a prior case in which his probation had been violated. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Rayden R. et al.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. Because the mother did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keedrin Coppage
Defendant, Keedrin Coppage, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed a life sentence for count one, and a consecutive sentence of six years for count two. Defendant raises twelve issues on appeal: (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support his first degree premeditated murder conviction; (2) admission of the Defendant’s prior bad acts against the victim under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) admission of the victim’s statements under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6); (4) denial of his motion for a continuance of the trial date; (5) denial of his motion to admit recordings and photographs; (6) exclusion of portions of body camera footage; (7) denial of Defendant’s motion for mistrial; (8) exclusion of the victim’s family’s civil law suit; (9) allowing the jury to use transcripts of audio recordings; (10) not allowing defense counsel to question an officer regarding explicit recordings sent to him by Defendant; (11) not allowing defense counsel to question whether Defendant was charged for the prior bad acts admitted under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); and (12) that he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After a thorough review of the entire record, the briefs, oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deondre Raymon McClain
The Defendant, Deondre Raymon McClain, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective six-year probationary sentence stemming from his guilty-pleaded convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with the intent to sell. On appeal, he argues that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to support its decision to fully revoke his probation and order him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kelly M. Et Al. v. Agness M.
This case began with a March 14, 2024 petition to terminate the parental rights of |
Washington | Circuit, Criminal & Chancery Courts | |
In Re Jack C. L. et al.
The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to two minor children on the grounds of abandonment and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of or financial responsibility for the children. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to abandonment but affirm the trial court’s ruling as to the father’s failure to manifest an ability and willingness. Because we also conclude that terminating the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests, we affirm the trial court’s ultimate ruling. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Landon Hank Black
The Defendant, Landon Hank Black, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Landon Allen Turner
A Marion County jury convicted Landon Allen Turner, Defendant, of reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse for the death of Z.H.,[1] Defendant’s girlfriend’s two-year-old son. He argues on appeal that: (1) the juvenile court erred in transferring his case to circuit court; (2) the State violated its Brady obligations by failing to provide defense counsel with a copy of Defendant’s statements prior to the juvenile transfer hearing; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) his conviction for aggravated child abuse should be barred under the doctrine of “mutually exclusive verdicts”; and (5) his sentence is excessive. After review, we affirm the judgments.[1] It is the policy of this Court to protect the identities of minor victims by using their initials. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Zachary C. Crouch v. The University of Tennessee
This appeal involves claims of breach of contract and employment discrimination filed by a graduate student/teaching assistant at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The plaintiff claimed that he was fired for discriminatory reasons and that the University of Tennessee had breached its employment contract with him. The trial court dismissed the breach of contract claim based on sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the employment discrimination claims by reason of the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamiracle Scott
Defendant, Lamiracle Scott, appeals from her Shelby County conviction for first degree premediated murder, for which she received a life sentence. Defendant contends: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request for a continuance; and (3) that she is entitled to plain error relief due to a juror allegedly sleeping during trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John B. Jones v. Samantha Rose Jones
In the first appeal in this case, we reversed the decision of the trial court to award custody of the minor children to Grandparents and remanded for Grandparents to prove substantial harm. While the appeal was pending, Mother and Grandparents filed a joint petition for custody to be returned to Mother. The trial court held a trial on both issues following the remand from this Court. Ultimately, the trial court granted Mother’s petition and entered a parenting plan naming Mother primary residential parent and awarding Father weekend visitation; Grandparents were not awarded any visitation. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Sarah Elizabeth Woodruff v. Ford Motor Company
After a tragic motor vehicle accident caused her husband’s death and her minor child’s serious injuries, the plaintiff filed this products liability action against several manufacturers and sellers. We granted the instant interlocutory appeal in which the defendant requests review — based on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Carolyn Coffman, et al. v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., 615 S.W.3d 888 (Tenn. 2021) — of the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel Isaac Herrick
The Defendant, Nathaniel Isaac Herrick, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Keith Hughes, Jr.
The defendant, Jonathan Keith Hughes, Jr., was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of one count of first degree murder, one count of criminally negligent homicide, and three counts of conspiracy to commit murder. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s admission of evidence of his gang affiliation, the trial court’s failure to provide an accomplice instruction to the jury, and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Upon review of the record, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments reflecting the defendant’s convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder under the proper statute. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
King Construction Group, Inc. v. Highlands Residential Services
This appeal concerns the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101, et seq. (“the PPA”). King Construction Group, Inc. (“King”) sued Highlands Residential Services (“HRS”) in the Chancery Court for Putnam County (“the Trial Court”) for violating the PPA. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court ruled in King’s favor, granting an award to King for HRS’s failure to place retained funds in a separate, interest-bearing escrow account as required by the PPA. The Trial Court further awarded King statutory interest and attorney’s fees. HRS appeals, arguing that an amendment to the PPA, which became effective in July 2020 after the parties had entered into their agreement, means that HRS, a public housing agency, did not have to place retainage in an escrow account. We hold that, as HRS first failed to place retained funds in an escrow account before the amendment became effective, the pre-July 2020 version of the PPA applies to this action. We affirm the Trial Court’s award of a penalty to King for HRS’s failure to place retainage in an escrow account. However, we reverse the Trial Court’s award of attorney’s fees to King because the Trial Court made no supporting findings nor is there any evidence of bad faith by HRS. In addition, we vacate the Trial Court in its award of statutory interest to King and remand for the Trial Court to calculate a new award of statutory interest to King at the interest rate specified in the pre-July 2020 version of the PPA. We thus affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and vacate, in part, and this cause is remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals |