David C. Sands v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, David C. Sands, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Rutherford County Circuit Court, alleging newly discovered evidence exists that demonstrates his innocence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney B. Mathews v. State of Tennessee
In 1996, a Montgomery County jury convicted the petitioner, Courtney B. Mathews, of four counts of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole plus twenty-five years in confinement. On June 24, 2025, the petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging “the indictment upon which his judgment is based is duplicitous and, therefore, void. ”The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding the petition failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Keontae Lyons
Defendant, Gregory Keontae Lyons, appeals from his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder; employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony; attempted sale of a Schedule I controlled substance; and conspiracy to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, for which he is serving an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude references to his age; and that the trial court failed to properly consider Defendant’s age as a mitigating factor in sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hunter Jay Chantler
The Defendant, Hunter Jay Chantler, appeals from his jury conviction for aggravated sexual battery and resulting eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that (1) the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction due to the victim’s lack of credibility and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by questioning the minor victim during the State’s direct examination at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lumley
The Defendant, Joshua Cortez Moten, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Laura Naomi Clifton v. State of Tennessee
In May 2024, the Petitioner, Laura Naomi Clifton, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Cortez Moten
The Defendant, Joshua Cortez Moten, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Horace Palmer Williamson, III
The defendant, Horace Palmer Williamson, III, was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder, two counts of first-degree premeditated murder,1 two counts of especially aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of felon in possession of a weapon. The jury imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole on the murder counts, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-five years on the remaining counts. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marc Anthony Crowder
A Montgomery County jury convicted the defendant, Marc Anthony Crowder, of first-degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. The defendant also contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeremy James Dalton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeremy James Dalton, appeals from the Fentress County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis as untimely. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas N. Allen v. Stanton Heidle, Warden
The pro se Petitioner, Thomas N. Allen, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason White v. John Beard, Warden
The Petitioner, Jason White, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Patrick Spain
This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendant, James Patrick Spain, for review of the trial court’s order denying his “Motion to Reconsider Bond.” See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Joe Baggett
Defendant, Billy Joe Baggett, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfonvo Montell Johnson a.ka. Alfonzo Montell Johnson
Defendant, Alfonvo Montell Johnson, appeals his Bradley County Criminal Court jury convictions of facilitation of second degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, evidence tampering, abuse of a corpse, and attempted abuse of a corpse, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support certain of his convictions and that the absence of an election with regard to the charge of evidence tampering entitles him to a new trial on that offense. Because the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions of abuse of a corpse and attempted abuse of a corpse, we reverse those convictions and dismiss the charges. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Keith Richardson
The Defendant, Keith Richardson, appeals his Perry County Circuit Court convictions of five counts each of statutory rape by an authority figure and incest, four counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, and one count each of continuous sexual abuse of a child, aggravated rape, and aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of aggravated rape, (2) he did not properly waive his right to a jury trial pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 23, and (3) his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we remand the Defendant’s judgments of conviction for rape in count 21and statutory rape in count 22for the entry of corrected judgments. We otherwise discern no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mena Mekhaen Boutrous v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mena Mekhaen Boutrous, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his motion for due process tolling of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act’s statute of limitations. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to due process tolling because his mental health issues rendered him incompetent during the one-year limitations period. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Desmon Paul Rhea
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Desmon Paul Rhea, of two counts of first degree felony murder, one count of second degree murder, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of aggravated burglary of a habitation. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus thirty-seven years. On appeal, the Defendant raises six groups of issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his convictions for premeditated murder and the burglary-related offenses; (2) whether the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by conditioning the presentation of an insanity defense on the admission of his previously suppressed statements; (3) whether the State’s destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence requireda new trial under State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999); (4) whether the trial court committed multiple evidentiary errors, each independently warranting reversal and cumulatively depriving him of a fair trial; (5) whether prosecutorial misconduct during the State’s closing argument rendered the trial fundamentally unfair; and (6) whether the trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy Robinson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Roy Robinson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jereme Walker Amis
The Defendant, Jereme Walker Amis, was convicted in the Benton County Circuit Court of possession of a firearm after having been convicted ofa felony crime of violence, a Class B felony, possession of a firearm after having been convicted of felony drug offense, a Class C felony, and violating the conditions of his community supervision, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions ofpossessing a firearm and sentenced himto an effective sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendantcontends thatthe trial court committed plain errorby refusing to accept his offer to stipulate tohis prior felony convictions,that the trial court abused its discretionby denying his request to bifurcatethe chargeofviolating the conditions of his community supervision, and that his effective sentence is excessive. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bruce Allen Watts
Defendant, Bruce Allen Watts, appeals the trial court’s decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his effective fourteen-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott A. Stiner
The Defendant, Scott A. Stiner, was convicted by a Union County Criminal Court jury of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and four counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-529(soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor)1(2018)(subsequently amended), 39-13-504 (aggravated sexual battery) (2018)(subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1)he did not receive a fair trial because the allegations and acts that constitute the basis of the convictions were different than the allegations in the indictment and the bill of particulars;(2) the court erred by failing to sever the offenses during the trial; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age conviction in Count 6;(4) he did not receive a unanimous verdict for aggravated sexual battery in Count 3; (5) the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial; (6) the court erred in admitting evidence in contravention of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) the court erred in admitting a diagram that was not properly authenticated; (8)the court erred by allowing expert testimony that went beyond the scope of the witness’s expertise; and (9) the court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing on all counts. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Koontz
Defendant, Thomas Koontz, appeals the judgment of the Criminal Court for Hamblen County revoking his probation and ordering execution of his original eight‑year, |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Scott A. Stiner - Concurring
I agree with the majority in affirming the trial court’s judgments and legal conclusions, save for one issue. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority opinion regarding the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of an uncharged sexual assault of a baby pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). I would find that the introduction of this evidence was in error; however, I would further find that the error was harmless in these circumstances and would affirm the convictions despite the error. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MAWULE TEPE
The Defendant, Mawule Tepe, has filed a pro se petition seeking the recusal of |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals |
