State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kiger
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. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Merv Conley Rodgers
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Merv Conley Rodgers, of aggravated assault |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael J.W. Potter
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. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Cooke
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. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Markell Nolen
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. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Jordan A. et al.
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. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kimberly Ann Scott v. State of Tennessee
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. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Higgs, Jr.
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Richard Higgs, Jr., of rape of a child, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Huerta
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. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elliot Arnaz Price
Defendant, Elliot Arnaz Price, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for one count of burglary. After trial, a petit jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court classified Defendant as a career offender and sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary;(2) the trial court committed reversible error in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior charge for burglary and of Defendant’s conduct underlying the burglary charge;(3)the trial court committed reversible error by classifying him as a career offender; (4)the trial court committed plain error in violation of Defendant’s confrontation rights by admitting the arresting officer’s affidavit from a prior theft case; and (5) the trial court committed plain error by improperly instructing the jury that the “without the consent of the property owner” element of burglary applied to Defendant’s “actions” rather than Defendant’s “entry” onto the victim’s property.2 After review, we conclude there are instances of error made by the trial court, but determine such errors were harmless and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shay Tyler Little
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. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ralphelle Antre James
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. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. J.P. Burrow, Jr.
The Defendant, J.P. Burrow, Jr., appeals his convictions for two counts of rape of a child, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shaun Poole
The Defendant, Shaun Poole, pled guilty in the Henry County General Sessions Court to violating a no-contact order, and the court imposed a fully suspended sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the circuit court and subsequently sought correction of his sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The circuit court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider a Rule 36.1 challenge to a judgment entered in the general sessions court and dismissed the claim. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion. However, because the appellate record does not clearly establish the status of the Defendant’s remaining post-conviction claims, we remand the case for the circuit court to clarify the status of those claims and to conduct any further proceedings required by law. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelley Irene Engel Gambill
The Defendant, Kelley Gambill, appeals her Davidson County Criminal Court conviction of aggravated cruelty to animals, for which she received a sentence of two years’ supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court misconstrued the statute's “no justifiable purpose” language and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Kerry Pickle v. State of Tennessee
After pleading guilty in federal court, the Petitioner, Robert Kerry Pickle, pled guilty in 2014 to eight additional offenses in the Coffee County Circuit Court. The circuit court imposed an effective sentence of eight years’ incarceration. Eleven years later, and while still serving his federal sentence, the Petitioner filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus. He asserted that his state sentences had expired and that the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive sentences. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the Petitioner’s state sentences were aligned consecutively to his federal sentence and therefore had not expired. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian R. Gadbois
Following a trial, a jury found Defendant, Brian R. Gadbois, guilty of ten counts of rape of a child, three counts of aggravated assault, seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, and four counts of indecent exposure, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of 475 years. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in not granting his request for a mistrial; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to sever offenses while simultaneously granting the State’s motion to proceed on both of his indictments during the same trial; (3) the trial court committed plain error when it allowed the State to introduce two reports that were prepared by individuals who did not testify at trial; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Joe Patrick v. State of Tennessee
A Grundy County jury convicted the Petitioner, Bobby Joe Patrick, of two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court ordered an effective sentence of sixty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Patrick, M2019-02026-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 2102914, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2021), perm. app. denied. (Tenn. Feb. 10, 2022). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to post-conviction relief due to the ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victor Gordon
The Defendant, Victor Gordon, appeals from his convictions for rape of a child and |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Burnette
Defendant, Ricky Burnette, was convicted by a Knox County jury of theft between $2,500 and $10,000, a Class D felony, and sentenced to twelve years’ incarceration as a career offender. In this direct appeal, he contends: (1) the trial court erred when it determined that his convictions from 1991were admissible for impeachment purposes; (2) the trial court improperly limited the testimony of a witness concerning an ongoing investigation, (3) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony regarding the contents of a stolen vehicle, (4) the trial court erred in failing to give a curative instruction after a witness referred to Defendant’s “classification,” (5) the trial court improperly bolstered the State’s expert witness by asking a hypothetical question, (6) the trial court improperly sustained an objection to the cross-examination of a State’s witness, (7) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight, and (8) the cumulative effect of these alleged errors entitles him to relief. Upon a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Bradley Price
The Defendant, Scott Bradley Price, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin James Cruger Wendricks
In April of 2024, the Defendant, Justin James Cruger Wendricks, pleaded guilty to two |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Cartwright v. Brandon Watwood, Warden
The pro se Petitioner, Anthony Cartwright, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the Petitioner’s challenge to the amendment of his indictment does not state a cognizable ground for habeas corpus relief, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Oscar Romero
The Defendant, Oscar Romero, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of rape, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-503 (2018) (subsequently amended). On appeal, he asserts that the proof is insufficient to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred by excluding rebuttal evidence to impeach the victim, and that the court erred in its application of an enhancement factor during sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Martin B. Montemayor v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Martin B.Montemayor, pled guilty to second-degree murderand received a life imprisonment sentence without the possibility of parole. Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court in Rutherford County denied relief after a hearing, and Petitioner appealed to this Court. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition because (1) his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary; (2)he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) he was incorrectly sentenced as a repeat violent offender. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals |
