Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Brian Poe
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. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerrod James (In Re: AA/AAA Bonding Company)
The appellant, AA/AAA Bonding Company, appeals its suspension from writing bonds in |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Heavenlee J.
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. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
Adam Thomas v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
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. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
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 | |
MATTHEW HAWN v. SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.
This appeal concerns a local board of education’s decision to dismiss a tenured teacher. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Jasmine, LLC v. Jasmine Asian Cuisine, Inc.
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. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Clark v. Dr. Roseann Maikis et al.
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. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dr. Regina Jordan-Sodiq v. State of Tennessee et al.
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. |
Montgomery | Court of 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. Randall C. Johnson
This appeal addresses sealing judicial records. Three filings were sealed without a written order. The presiding judge later recused herself and the matter was transferred. Then The Nashville Banner intervened to unseal the records. The trial court denied the motion to unseal. The appellate court denied the Rule 10 appeal and then denied the petition for writ of certiorari. We reverse. Rule 10 interlocutory review is available to media intervenors when judicial proceedings are closed or documents are sealed. Sealing judicial records protected by the First Amendment right of access requires entry of a written order after finding that a compelling interest necessitates sealing. Any such order mustbe narrowly tailored and seal only those judicial records, or the portions thereof, necessary to protect the identified interest. After conducting a de novo review, we do not find a compelling interest necessitating sealing. The documents shall be made available to the public. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall C. Johnson (Concurring in Part/Dissenting in Part)
I agree with many of the holdings in the majority’s good opinion, but I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s adoption of a new compelling interest standard for sealing documents. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall C. Johnson (Concurring in Part/Dissenting in Part)
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. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Sarah Chapman v. Chris Wade
The trial court entered a parenting plan setting parenting time and child support between Mother and Father. Mother appealed. Mother raises a due process challenge to the trial extending into the late evening of the last day. She also challenges the trial court’s analysis of the best interest factors, its allocation of parenting time, its designation of Father as the primary residential parent, its awarding to Father sole decision-making authority, and its denial of Mother’s motion to alter or amend. Father seeks attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and award attorney’s fees. |
Williamson | Court of 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 | |
Tray Simmons v. Dr. Shahidul Islam et al.
The Appellant brought suit against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s clinic, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. After appellate briefing and oral argument but prior to the filing of the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jenifer Hutcherson Hall, et al. v. Robertson County, Tennessee
This appeal arises from a general claim of negligence stemming from a dog bite. The plaintiffs adopted a dog from an animal shelter owned and operated by the defendant, a governmental entity. The dog bit one of the plaintiffs shortly after adoption. The plaintiffs sued, claiming that the shelter had a duty to warn them of the dog’s dangerous propensities but failed to do so. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined that the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of the incident, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not establish the defendant owed them a duty to warn. Accordingly, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Robertson | Court of 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 |