Opinions
Earnest Costosteno Woodley v. James M. Holloway, Warden
In 2016, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Earnest Costosteno Woodley, of four counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced him as a repeat violent offender to four concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Nine years later, the Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his criminal history did not qualify him as a repeat violent offender. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Lloyd Smith, III
Defendant, William Lloyd Smith, III, pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell and received an agreed sentence of eight years as a Range I offender, to be served on probation. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking probation rather than allowing him furlough to a residential treatment facility previously approved by his probation officer. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Michael Fiedler
The Defendant, Christopher Michael Fiedler, appeals his Henry County Circuit Court conviction of driving ona suspended license, for which he received a sentence of 180 days’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred by finding that heknowingly and voluntarily waived his right to the assistance of counsel. He also argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing or to make the requisite findingspursuant to State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. 2000),insupportofits determination that confinement was particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses. The State responds that the Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within range sentence. Following our review, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Miracle A'sha Bailey and Robert Jaylen Holland
In January 2023, the Montgomery County Grand Jury issued a four-count indictment charging Miracle A’sha Bailey (“Defendant Bailey”) and Robert Jaylen Holland (“Defendant Holland”) with first degree premeditated murder (Count 1), evading arrest in an automobile causing a risk of death or serious bodily injury (Count 2), and theft of property valued at more than $10,000 (Count 3). Defendant Holland was also charged with evading arrest (Count 4). Following a joint trial, the jury convicted Defendant Bailey of first degree premeditated murder and the lesser-included offenses of evading arrest in an automobile in Count 2 and joyriding in Count 3, for which the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. The jury convicted Defendant Holland of first degree premeditated murder, evading arrest in an automobile causing a risk of death or serious bodily injury, the lesser-included offense of joyriding in Count 3, and evading arrest, for which the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, Defendant Bailey contends that (1) the trial court erred by admitting a detective’s body camera recording of a doorbell camera video; (2) the chain of custody for her cell phone and the victim’s cell phone was insufficiently established; (3) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs; (4) the trial court erred by finding that the automobile’s owner was not a material witness; (5) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity; and (6) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight. For his part, Defendant Holland contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for first degree premeditated murder; (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity and by issuing an “inaccurate” instruction on flight; (3) his right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial court allowed an expert witness to testify who did not perform the gunshot residue (“GSR”) testing; and (4) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs. After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable case law, we affirm. We also determine that there is a clerical error in Defendant Holland’s judgment form in Count 2 and remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Robert McBee
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Johnny Robert McBee, of first degree premeditated murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his oral motion to bifurcate the unlawful possession charge from the first degree murder charge. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devon D. Holloway
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Devon D. Holloway, of theft of property, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of twelve years’incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises twoissues: (1) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain his conviction for theft; and (2) whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight.Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joshua F. Linebarger v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joshua Linebarger, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. After pleading guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to theft, reckless burning, and assault and receiving an effective ten-year sentence, the Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition outside the one-year statute of limitations. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was untimely on its face and that principles of due process did not toll the limitations period. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Waynard Q. Winbush v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Waynard Q. Winbush, appeals the dismissalof his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry J. Zbleski, Jr.
A Dickson County jury convicted the Defendant, Barry J. Zbleski, Jr., of second degree murder by the unlawful distribution of fentanyl or carfentanil and of the knowing sale and distribution of fentanyl resulting in death or bodily injury. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder; and (2) whether the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by admitting testimony from a substitute medical examiner. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cynthia Torres v. YMCA Foundation of Middle Tennessee
The appeal concerns the scope and enforceability of a liability waiver. The trial court determined the liability waiver applied to the plaintiff’s claims of personal injury and granted the defendant summary judgment. We agree and affirm |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Eddrick Booker v. Tennessee Board of Parole
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a defective petition for writ of certiorari for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the Appellee’s motion to dismiss after Appellant failed to verify and notarize the petition under the requirements set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-106. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Gracelyn H.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ellie C.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s modification of a residential schedule in which the |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Camille Webb Steward v. Orson Eric Steward
This accelerated interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for recusal, which was brought pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02. Because Appellant’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B§ 1.01, the appeal is dismissed. |
Court of Appeals | ||
ROSE CHRISTIAN V. JEFFERSON CITY, ET AL.
This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action concerning the rezoning of property |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Laila T.
The mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision to impose sanctions against her for failing |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joshua Matthew Brown v. Kimberly Higginbotham Brown
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The parties were married over twenty years and had three children. The mother was a stay-at-home parent while Father was employed. At trial, they stipulated to separate parenting schedules for their two teenagers but could not agree on a parenting schedule for their youngest daughter, a former foster child they had adopted years earlier. The trial court designated the father primary residential parent of the youngest daughter and adopted a parenting schedule with equal parenting time on an alternating weekly basis. The trial court denied the mother’s request for alimony in futuro and awarded her transitional alimony for a period of five months. The trial court ordered the father to pay $6,000 of the mother’s attorney fees, but each party was deemed responsible for the remainder of his or her own attorney fees. The mother appeals. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Keith King v. Dayco Incorporated
Worker employed by a temporary staffing agency was assigned to one of the agency’s clients and then injured while working. In suing the client for negligence, the worker relied on the contract between agency and client that provided that such assignees would not be considered employees of the client. The trial court granted summary judgment for the client, finding that the worker was a co-employee of the client and thus subject to the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law. Because the worker admitted all of the facts establishing his status as an employee of the client by failing to dispute them, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mayor Lee Harris et al. v. Governor Bill Lee et al.
The plaintiffs sued various state officials to enjoin the deployment of Tennessee National Guard troops in support of the President’s Memphis Safe Task Force. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, and the state defendants filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 motion seeking permission to appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted. Finding that the plaintiffs lack standing, we reverse the issuance of the injunction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Carrington Owens v. State of Tennessee
Carrington Owens, Petitioner, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief from Petitioner’s convictions for four counts of rape of a child, twenty-three counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and twelve counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age and his effective thirty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shoshanna Cabanting
A Hancock County jury convicted the Defendant, Shoshanna Cabanting, of vandalism as a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with thirty days to be served in confinement and the remainder suspended to probation. In a prior appeal, this court reversed and remanded the case for a limited resentencing hearing. On remand, the trial court made additional findings and reimposed the same sentence. The Defendant again challenges the split-confinement portion of her sentence and requests that this court impose full probation instead. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Essie James, et al. v. Petra Finance, LLC, et al.
This case involves a petition for rescission of a mortgage loan based on fraud in the |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arvel Joshua Terry
A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Arvel Joshua Terry, of domestic assault. The trial court sentenced him to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which was suspended after service of 120 days in custody. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his conviction for domestic assault; and (2) whether the trial court improperly denied defense counsel the opportunity to refresh a witness’s recollection. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reuben Hickok Fairfield v. Guy Bosch, Warden
In 2012, the Petitioner, Reuben Hickok Fairfield, pleaded guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to the offenses of second degree murder and tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-five years’ incarceration. The Petitioner later filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his arrest warrant was void and that, as a result, his indictment and judgments were likewise void. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Thomas Thompson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher Thomas Thompson, appeals from the Weakley County Circuit |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals |