State of Tennessee v. Joshua Terelle Gaines
The Defendant, Joshua Terelle Gaines, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense and received an effective sentence of life plus five years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by redacting his psychological expert’s report and by limiting the expert’s testimony. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christian Workman
The Defendant, Christian Workman, appeals from the revocation of his probation, arguing the trial court improperly revoked his probation based upon his failure to pay court costs and supervision fees. The State concedes error, and after review, we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the revocation warrant. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Zachary Rye Adams v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the application of the Petitioner, Zachary Rye Adams, for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. The Defendant seeks to challenge the post-conviction court’s order granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude a recorded post-trial statement of his codefendant, Jason Autry. The Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously determined that the statement did not satisfy the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule. See Tenn. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). The State has filed a response in opposition to the motion. Based on the following, we deny the Petitioner’s motion for an interlocutory appeal. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio James v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Antonio James, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because the sufficiency of the evidence was not challenged on appeal. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivan Antjuan Burley
The Defendant, Ivan Antjuan Burley, appeals from his Sumner County conviction for attempted possession with the intent to sell or deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. He contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his contemporaneous drug-related activities in Davidson County in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). Additionally, the Defendant raises several other constitutional and evidentiary claims. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kentrel Moragne
Kentrel Moragne, Defendant, appeals from his conviction for unlawful exposure for which he received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve fourteen days in incarceration and the remainder of the sentence on probation. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in this timely appeal. Because the statute is not ambiguous and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kejuan King v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kejuan King, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his second degree murder conviction for which he received a sentence of twenty-five years’ incarceration. Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to effectively cross-examine witnesses, investigate prior altercations and present evidence thereof, and argue for proper jury instructions. After review, we remand this case to the post-conviction court for entry of a written order that sufficiently addresses all grounds presented by Petitioner and states the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding each ground as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111(b). |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyler Michale Price
The Defendant, Kyler Michael Price, was convicted by a Warren County jury of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, and driving without a valid license, a Class C misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent terms of thirty days for the misdemeanor conviction and two years as a Range II offender for the felony conviction, with six months to serve in the county jail. The Defendant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain his reckless endangerment conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony by a police officer about the officer’s encounter with a different motorcyclist; and (3) whether the trial court erred by ordering confinement without correctly considering alternative sentencing. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Isaiah French
The Defendant, Isaiah French, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of premeditated first degree murder, two counts of attempted premeditated first degree murder resulting in serious bodily injury, two counts of employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, and three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life in prison without parole as a repeat violent offender plus 120 years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of premeditated first degree murder and attempted first degree murder and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to bifurcate the charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon from the remaining counts of the indictment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martin Aron Harasim
On or about July 31, 2025, the Defendant, Martin Aron Harasim, filed a pro se notice of appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). He simultaneously filed a pro se motion seeking review of the trial court’s ruling regarding the commencement of the sentence he received for his misdemeanor convictions in this case. Tenn. R. App. P. 8. As reflected in the judgment sheets, on July 25, 2025, the Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, first offense (Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401), attempted assault on a first responder (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-116), and resisting arrest (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16- 602), all of which are misdemeanors. The Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days of supervised probation after service of sixty days in jail. The Defendant is currently represented by appointed counsel and his case is still pending in the trial court, however. Accordingly, the pro se notice of appeal is premature. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(c) and (d). Moreover, it has long been the rule that a defendant may not be represented by counsel and simultaneously proceed pro se on appeal. State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Parsons, 437 S.W.3d 457, 478 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). Accordingly, the pro se notice of appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice. At the conclusion of the proceedings in the trial court, the Defendant, by and through counsel of record, may pursue an appeal to this Court, if appropriate. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). The pro se Rule 8 motion is denied for the same reason. Counsel may file the appropriate motion for review of the trial court’s ruling regarding the commencement of the Defendant’s sentence, if necessary. According to the statements by the Defendant in 08/04/2025 2 his motion, the trial court ordered him to begin serving his sixty-day sentence on August 1, 2025. If that is true, the Court makes the following observations for the benefit of counsel and the trial court. Subsection (b) of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-35-116 provides that the trial court may revoke bail immediately upon conviction, in applicable felony cases, “notwithstanding sentencing hearing[s], motion[s] for a new trial and related post-guilt determination hearings.” The Sentencing Commission Comments to that section advise that “[t]he standards for revocation of bail are set forth in Section 40-26-102.” Section 40- 26-102, entitled “Bail in felony cases,” governs admission to bail pending appeal. Subsection (e) of Section 40-26-102 provides that “[t]he setting of bail or release upon recognizance is a matter of right for one convicted of a felony and sentenced to confinement for less than one (1) year.” As discussed above, however, the Defendant in this case was convicted of misdemeanor offenses. The Sentencing Commission Comments to Section 40-35-116 further advise that bail in misdemeanor cases is addressed in Section 40-26-104. Both that statute and the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that a defendant has the right to bail pending appeal in misdemeanor cases. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-104; Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(1). Section 40-26-104 provides: “In all misdemeanor cases, the judge or court shall direct the clerk of the circuit or criminal court to admit the defendant to bail in a sum prescribed by the judge or court, with sufficient sureties for defendant’s appearance at the circuit or criminal court in which judgment was rendered against the defendant, at the next term after the decision of the cause by the supreme court, to answer the judgment of the court.” Rule 32(d), which is titled “Release After Conviction, Pending Further Proceedings,” discusses release following conviction in both misdemeanor and felony cases. Subsection (d)(1) of Rule 37, which covers misdemeanor cases, provides simply: “A person convicted of a misdemeanor has a right to have bail set or to be released on recognizance pending the exhaustion of all direct appellate procedure in the case.” Accordingly, it is clear the legislature intended those defendants convicted of a misdemeanor to be entitled to bail pending the exhaustion of post-trial and appellate remedies. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the Defendant, counsel of record, and the trial court clerk. Because the Defendant was declared indigent by the trial court, costs are taxed to the State. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Wilson
Defendant, Joshua Wilson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s decision to deny judicial diversion in his guilty-pleaded conviction of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503. Following our review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Orlando Carter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eric Orlando Carter, appeals from the Circuit Court of Davidson County’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following review, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lee Ream
The defendant, Robert Lee Ream, pleaded guilty to two counts of arson, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of four years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court also ordered the defendant to pay $75,000 in restitution. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in ordering restitution. Upon our review, we conclude that the defendant has failed to prepare a sufficient brief in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a), and therefore, his issue is waived. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Oscar Hernandez
A jury convicted the defendant, Oscar Hernandez, of three counts of rape of a child and five counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirty-three years for each of the rape of a child convictions and to ten years for each of the aggravated sexual battery convictions. The trial court ordered the three thirty-three-year sentences to run consecutively and the remaining sentences to run concurrently, for an effective sentence of ninety-nine years’ incarceration. In his direct appeal, the defendant contends the effective sentence is excessive. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Tobias Ryan Byram
A Hardin County jury convicted the Defendant of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court imposed a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Shane McDonald
The Defendant, Kenneth Shane McDonald, appeals from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated burglary. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and the trial court improperly restricted cross-examination of one of his codefendants regarding sentencing exposure. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Hayes
The petitioner, Paul Hayes, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Livingston
A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Gregory Livingston, of first degree premeditated murder for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction; (2) the admission of the autopsy report prepared by a non-testifying forensic examiner and testimony from a medical examiner who did not conduct the autopsy; (3) the admission of a video recording from a police officer’s body camera showing the victim’s girlfriend crying following the shooting; and (4) the admission of Defendant’s statement that he previously killed others. Upon review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Ometrick Stasher
Defendant, Carlos Ometrick Stasher, was convicted by a Putnam County jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and evading arrest.1 The trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the firearm found in his vehicle; that the trial court erred by allowing the State to present evidence of his prior possession of a firearm; and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach him with prior convictions. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior possession of a firearm and by allowing the State to impeach Defendant with a prior conviction for possession of a firearm. However, we conclude that the error was harmless and affirm Defendant’s convictions. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Crawford v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Richard Crawford, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his Shelby County Criminal Court convictions of especially aggravated robbery, attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, and employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony, claiming that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and due process of law. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Todd Johnathan Grubb
The Defendant, Todd Johnathan Grubb, appeals from the Meigs County Criminal Court’s |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lebron Vick
The Defendant, Tracy Lebron Vick, pleaded guilty to second degree murder as a Range II offender and received a forty-year sentence. The Defendant filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily dismissed for the failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the court erred in denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JULIUS GODBOLT
The Defendant, through counsel, seeks an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 from the trial court’s order entered on July 23, 2025, denying his motion to continue the trial scheduled for July 28, 2025. The attachments to the application include, among other materials, the Defendant’s motion to continue filed on July 9, 2025, and the trial court’s order denying that motion. Upon review of the application and its supporting documents, we conclude that the Defendant has not demonstrated grounds for extraordinary relief under Rule 10. Accordingly, a response from the State is not required, and the application is respectfully DENIED. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Anthony Avery
The Petitioner, David Anthony Avery, acting pro se, appeals from the summary dismissal of his third motion pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking correction of his sentence. As grounds, the Petitioner asserts his sentence is illegal because attempted murder, a crime which he was convicted of, does not exist in Tennessee. Because the Petitioner’s motion failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derrick Darnell Moore and Demichael Tyrone Moore v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner Derrick Darnell Moore and Co-Petitioner Demichael Tyrone Moore1 were jointly tried and convicted of first degree murder, among other offenses, for which they were each sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment. Thereafter, they filed separate petitions for post-conviction relief, alleging that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the Petitioners raised three shared claims, arguing that their respective trial lawyers (1) failed to call key witnesses to testify; (2) failed to seek suppression of cell phone data; and (3) failed to raise or preserve an objection to hearsay for the later appeal. In addition to these shared claims, Petitioner Derrick Moore presented two individual grounds for relief, contending that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that his lawyer (1) failed to effectively communicate and investigate the case; and (2) failed to fulfill promises made during opening statements. Co-Petitioner Demichael Moore raised one additional individual claim, asserting that his lawyer was ineffective in failing to object to testimony regarding his history of incarceration. Finally, both Petitioners asserted that the cumulative prejudicial effect of these alleged deficiencies entitled them to post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioners appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
