APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Jeremy Brian Poe, of one count of theft of property greater than $10,000, but less than $60,000. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain hisconviction, and the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III offender. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.However, following ourreview of the defendant’s sentence, we conclude the trial court erred in its application ofTennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-107(b)and in finding the defendant to be a Range III, persistent offender. Accordingly, the defendant’s Range III sentence requires reversal, and we remand this matter for resentencing.

A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court
following the denial of Petitioner’s motion for the disqualification of the trial court judge.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee for work performed pursuant to an oral contract between the parties. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Macon County jury convicted the Defendant, Keith Douglas Garrett, of one count of unlawful photography and one count of observation without consent. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days and to register as a sexual offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the prosecution was void due to alleged defects in the arrest process and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to investigators under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).He also challenges the admission of digital evidence extracted from his cell phone and alleges that the State failed to disclose an additional forensic extraction report. In addition, he contends that the State engaged in an improper closing argument. Finally, he challenges the trial court’s sentencing determinations, including the denial of judicial diversion and alternative sentencing and the requirement that he register as a sexual offender. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Michael J.W. Potter, appeals the summary dismissal of his ex parte communication that the trial court treated as a petition for post-conviction relief and a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A paramedic sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. He asserted that in violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act he was discharged by the Nashville Fire Department because he refused to participate in or remain silent about the department forcing mentally competent inmates to undergo medical treatment without their consent. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the trial court granted the motion. The paramedic appealed. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal.

Defendant, Anthony Cooke, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his probationand order to serve the remainder of his seven-year sentence in confinement. Defendant argues the trial court improperly admitted certified copies of arrest warrants as exhibits to the revocation hearing and that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. We affirm.

On or about March 18, 2026, the pro se Petitioner, Christopher Kiger, filed what is purported to be a notice of appeal to this Court. Because it is unclear what the Petitioner is attempting to appeal, the Court filed an order on April 9, 2026, directing the Petitioner to show cause why this appeal shall be allowed to proceed. The Petitioner was ordered to identify any recent trial court judgment and/or order he seeks to appeal and to attach a copy of that judgment and/or order to his response.

This appeal concerns a local board of education’s decision to dismiss a tenured teacher.
The teacher sought judicial review of his dismissal in the trial court. The trial court found
no grounds for dismissal and reversed the board’s decision. The board appeals. We
conclude that the teacher was insubordinate in showing his class a video containing
profanity without parental consent. However, this lone act of insubordination did not
warrant the drastic step of dismissal given the teacher’s long record of good service. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Hawn was not shown to have
engaged in unprofessional conduct. I also concur with the majority’s conclusion that Mr.
Hawn was shown to have committed an act of insubordination and that the trial court’s
judgment should be modified to reflect that this statutory ground for a tenured teacher’s
dismissal was proven pursuant to the Teacher Tenure Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. 49-5-
511(a)(2). I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the Board’s
dismissal of Mr. Hawn “over one isolated act of insubordination was excessive.” In
support of this conclusion, the majority refers to the trial court’s findings regarding Mr.
Hawn’s service record and other factors in determining that the consequence of dismissal
was excessive.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Merv Conley Rodgers, of aggravated assault
by strangulation, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, domestic assault, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) that the trial court erred when it concluded he lacked standing to challenge the search of his vehicle; (2) that the trial court erred when it prevented the Defendant from introducing evidence from a prior domestic dispute; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault and especially aggravated kidnapping; and ( 4) that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

This appeal stems from a trial court judge’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to recuse. Petitioner filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to recuse.

This appeal requires us to determine whether clear and convincing evidence supports: (1)
at least one statutory ground for termination of Appellant’s parental rights; and (2) that
termination is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A jury convicted the Defendant of one count of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to sell; one count of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to deliver; and one count of driving with a cancelled, suspended, or revoked driver’s license. The trial court merged the drug convictions and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of ten years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, the Defendant claims that he should receive a new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his drug convictions. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We further hold that the evidence is not sufficient to support the Defendant’s drug convictions. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the Defendant’s drug convictions and dismiss the charges.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Richard Higgs, Jr., of rape of a child,
sexual battery by an authority figure, and incest, and the trial court sentenced him to a total
effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Kimberly Ann Scott, pled guilty in separate cases to one count of second degree murder and one count of reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of nineteen years. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered and that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal requires us to determine whether the Tennessee trial court’s orders on telephone visitation and fees remain justiciable in light of the Colorado permanent custody order. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee/maternal aunt and uncle’s motion for telephone visits with the minor children. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for abusive civil action and attorney’s fees and costs. Because the custody of the children was adjudicated by the Colorado court, Appellant’s issues regarding telephone visitation are moot. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s claims for abusive civil action and attorney’s fees and costs. Affirmed.

A restaurant based in Williamson County sued a restaurant based in Rutherford County in Williamson County Chancery Court over the use of the name Jasmine. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of venue, and the plaintiff amended the complaint, including allegations that the defendant provided services in Williamson County, advertised in Williamson County, and caused customer confusion and economic harm in Williamson County. The chancery court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding the fact that the plaintiff alleged economic harm in Williamson County was not sufficient to establish venue. We reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant, Michael Anthony Huerta, was indicted for three counts of first degree murder and pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder. Defendant agreed to be sentenced as a Range IIoffender with the length of the sentence to be determined at a sentencing hearing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve thirty-eight years at 100 percent release eligibility. On appeal, Defendant challenges his sentence as excessive and argues that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. Because Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal.

A plaintiff sued a physician and the physician’s practice, alleging the physician performed a biopsy during a medical office visit without the plaintiff’s consent. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement in the Health Care Liability Act. Because the court also determined that the action was time-barred, it dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We conclude that the plaintiff’s claim relates to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services. So we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act. But because we conclude that the complaint does not clearly show that it was filed more than one year after the plaintiff discovered the injury, we modify the dismissal to a dismissal without prejudice.

I join in Justice Kirby’s separate opinion. I briefly write separately to emphasize my specific concern with the majority’s unnecessary adoption of the compelling interest standard in this case.

The Defendant, Shay Tyler Little, appeals his Montgomery County Circuit Court conviction of aggravated burglary, for which he received a suspended sentence of six years’ supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion to recuse the trial court judge, which raised allegations of bias related to, inter alia, the treatment of her pro se status and her lack of personal notice of court filings, the lack of response to her ex parte communication, the failure to report alleged attorney misconduct, and the entry of certain court orders. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Ralphelle Antre James, of second degree murder, unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective thirty-six years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises two related issues. First, he asserts that the trial court improperly denied his motion to continue the trial to investigate alate-added witness. He also argues that the trial court erred in allowing thelate-added witness to testify,contending that the testimonyviolated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)and denied him a fair trial. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.