Opinions
Gary Wygant, et al. v. Bill Lee, Governor, et al. (Concur in Part/Dissent in Part)
I join in the majority’s insightful analysis of Tennessee’s constitutional standing doctrine building upon the principles articulated in Case v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., 703 S.W.3d 274, 286–92 (Tenn. 2024). I quite agree with the majority that the claims we decide today are “quintessential” public rights cases and the three-part test of City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88, 98 (Tenn. 2013), applies to the standing issues in both cases. I agree that Ms. Hunt does not meet this test and has no constitutional standing to pursue her claims. I also agree that Mr. Wygant’s challenge to the House map does not present a nonjusticiable political question and that he has no standing to challenge the entire House map. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Gary Wygant, et al. v. Bill Lee, Governor, et al.
In this case, two Tennessee voters challenge the state House and Senate redistricting maps the General Assembly passed after the 2020 census. Gary Wygant, a Gibson County voter, alleges that the House redistricting map violates Article II, Section 5 of the Tennessee Constitution because it splits more counties than needed to comply with federal law. Francie Hunt, a Davidson County voter, alleges that the Senate redistricting map violates Article II, Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution because it fails to consecutively number one of the four Senate districts in Davidson County. We hold that Wygant has standing to challenge only the split of Gibson County, not the entire House map. But his challenge fails on the merits: Wygant did not prove—as he must to establish a violation of Article II, Section 5—that the split was unnecessary to comply with federal law and lacked a rational or legitimate basis. We further hold that Hunt lacks standing to challenge the Senate map because she did not suffer an injury in fact from the misnumbering of Davidson County’s Senate districts. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment rejecting Wygant’s district-specific challenge on the merits, reverse the judgment concluding that Hunt has standing, and vacate the judgment holding the Senate map unconstitutional. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Kinsinger, Jr.
In 2021, the Defendant, Richard Kinsinger, Jr., pleaded guilty to sexual battery by an authority figure, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve six months in confinement and five years on probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kentavis Antwon Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kentavis Antwon Jones, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erroneously dismissed the petition for not being in the proper form without giving him reasonable opportunity to correct the petition with the assistance of counsel. He also argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the negligence of his trial counsel. The State responds that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition as untimely and that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Wygant, et al. v. Bill Lee, Governor, et al. (Concur in Part/Dissent in Part)
I agree with most of the majority’s excellent opinion, including its conclusions concerning Mr. Wygant’s claim. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion on Ms. Hunt’s standing. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
In Re Madison B.
This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. (“Father”) to their Child, Madison B. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison and Madison’s older sister, Kaylee B., in two separate petitions filed in the Sevier County Juvenile Court (“trial court”).1 The trial court conducted a joint hearing on both petitions and entered two separate orders terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to each child.2 The trial court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison after finding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based upon the ground of mental incompetence. The trial court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in Madison’s best interest. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Kaylee B.
This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Peterson
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Darrell Peterson, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed a life sentence plus twenty-five years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keshon Ford v. Brandon Watwood, Warden
In 2022, the Petitioner, Keshon Ford, pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder in exchange for a sentence of ten years of incarceration. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his plea was not entered voluntarily. The habeas court entered an order dismissing the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the habeas corpus court erred when it denied his request for appointment of counsel and when it summarily dismissed his petition. We affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Virginia Dodson-Stephens et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by a mother, individually and on behalf of her daughter, against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and the State of Tennessee after her daughter sustained paralyzing injuries while attending a public school. After a four-day bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants were negligent and that each was fifty percent at fault for the child’s injuries. The trial court found that the plaintiffs should be awarded total compensatory damages of $10,902,348.02, but it reduced the judgment to $600,000 ($300,000 against each defendant) in accordance with the applicable statutory caps. Metro has appealed, while the State has not. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alice Cartwright Garner, et al. v. Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell, PLLC, et al.
Under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, a party may seek dismissal of a lawsuit that was filed “in response to that party’s exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right of association.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-105(a) (2021). In this case, two lawyers sought to dismiss a tort action brought by the sister and brother-in-law of a former client. The lawyers had represented the former client in a series of unsuccessful lawsuits against the sister and brother-in-law related to their administration of a family trust. Dissatisfied with their representation, the former client sued the lawyers for legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment. Based on that alleged conduct, the sister and brother-in-law also sued the lawyers under the tort-of-another doctrine. The lawyers sought to dismiss the tort action on the theory that it was filed in response to the lawyers’ exercise of the right to petition in the underlying trust litigation. We hold that the lawyers failed to show that the tort action was filed in response to their exercise of the right to petition. Assuming that filing a lawsuit is an “exercise of the right to petition” within the meaning of the statute, a lawyer who files a lawsuit on behalf of a client does not personally exercise that right. Instead, a lawyer at most facilitates his client’s exercise of the right. Because the lawyers here cannot show that the action was filed in response to their exercise of the right to petition, the action should not be dismissed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary holding and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Alan C. Cartwright v. Thomason Hendrix, P.C., et al.
Under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, a party may seek dismissal of a lawsuit that was filed “in response to that party’s exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right of association.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-105(a) (2021). In this appeal, we consider whether lawyers sued by their former client for legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment may seek dismissal of the lawsuit on the theory that it was filed in response to the lawyers’ exercise of the right to petition—namely, the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of their client. We hold they may not. Assuming that filing a lawsuit is an “exercise of the right to petition” within the meaning of the statute, a lawyer who files a lawsuit on behalf of a client does not personally exercise that right. Instead, the lawyer at most facilitates his client’s exercise of the right. Because the lawyers here cannot show that their former client filed the malpractice and fraudulent concealment action in response to the lawyers’ exercise of the right to petition, the action should not be dismissed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary holding and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Damone Pewitte
A Gibson County jury convicted the Defendant, Joshua Damone Pewitte, of three counts of rape of a child. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant broadly challenges whether the election process was sufficient to protect against the risk of a non-unanimous verdict. Specifically, the Defendant raises three inter-related issues regarding the election process on plain error review: (1) the State made its initial election outside the presence of the jury and did not mention its election to the jury until its rebuttal closing argument; (2) the State referenced examples of uncharged conduct during its closing argument; and (3) the language from the trial court’s unanimity instruction was different from the State’s election and closing argument. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Thomas Hunter, Jr.
The Defendant, Michael Thomas Hunter, Jr., was convicted of six counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, a Class B felony, at a bench trial in the Montgomery County Circuit Court. See T.C.A. § 39-13-504 (2018) (subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve ten years at 100% for each offense, with five of the six sentences to be served consecutively. The court also ordered community supervision for life and placement on the sexual offender registry. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial, (2) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his post-polygraph statements, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and (4) the court erred in sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for the correction of a clerical error in the offense date on the judgment for Count 6. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lucian A. Clemmons
The Defendant, Lucian A. Clemmons, appeals from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. On appeal, he asserts constitutional and evidentiary claims related to the trial court’s exclusion of prior statements he made to the lead detective following his arrest. Additionally, as to the murder conviction, the Defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on self-defense and that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict because the State failed to establish premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Esther Lynn Bowman v. Paul Chapman Smith, Jr.
This appeal concerns a father’s petition to modify a permanent parenting plan to name him as the primary residential parent for his two daughters. The trial court found a material change in circumstance based on, inter alia, the mother’s remarriage and frequent out-of-state travel, and it concluded that modification was in the children’s best interests. This appeal followed. The mother contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding of a material change in circumstances. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody R. Mashburn
The Defendant, Cody R. Mashburn, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and criminal simulation. As part of the plea, the parties agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to an effective term of ten years, but the trial court would determine the manner of service. After a hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and imposed a sentence of full confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence because, among other things, it improperly sentenced the Defendant without considering the results of a validated risk and needs assessment. Upon our review, we agree with the Defendant. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse and vacate the judgments and remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Richard Douglas Roberson
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff sought to determine whether the defendant was an heir to the estate. The trial court determined that the defendant was not an heir and divided the estate accordingly amongst the legal heirs. We now affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Cristobal J. Quintana II
The Defendant, Cristobal J. Quintana II, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second offense driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor; possessing an open container of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle, a Class C misdemeanor; and violation of the financial responsibility law, a Class C misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401(1) (2020) (DUI), 55-10-402(a)(2) (Supp. 2022) (subsequently amended) (sentencing for second-offense DUI), 55-10-416 (open container law), 55-12-139 (2020) (financial responsibility). He was also found civilly liable by the trial court for violation of the implied consent law. See id. § 55-10-406 (2020) (subsequently amended) (implied consent). The trial court imposed an effective eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence, forty-five days of which was to be served in jail, and the balance on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment for second offense DUI and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and the finding on the implied consent violation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand for correction of clerical errors on the judgment forms for Counts 1, 2, and 3. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chaisty Dawn Jones
In June 2021, the Maury County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Chaisty Dawn Jones, for first degree premeditated murder in Count 1, first degree felony murder perpetration of aggravated burglary in Count 2, aggravated burglary in Count 3, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony in Count 4, and simple possession of marijuana in Count 5. At trial, the jury convicted the Defendant of the lesser included offense of second degree murder in Count 1 and convicted her as charged in Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5. The trial court merged the conviction in Count 1 with the conviction in Count 2 and imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the Defendant had a “duty to retreat” prior to acting in self-defense. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Count 1 and Count 2. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Corey M.
This action involves the termination of a mother and father’s parental rights to their minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish several statutory grounds of termination as applied to each parent. The court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We now affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Allen Fitzgerald Ailey
Defendant, Allen Fitzgerald Ailey, pleaded guilty in two cases to felon in possession of a weapon, possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell or deliver oxycodone. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant received concurrent four-year sentences for the drug offenses to be served consecutively to a sentence of six years for the weapon offense, with the manner of service of Defendant’s sentences to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered Defendant to serve his entire ten-year sentence in confinement. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by denying probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand for entry of judgments on the counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Gray
In 2018, the Defendant, Ronald Gray, pleaded guilty to several drug related charges in |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shaun Christopher Bruce Et Al. v. Tennessee American Water Company
This is an appeal from the denial of two class action certifications. The trial court found |
Court of Appeals | ||
Ellen Marie Cali v. Robert George Cali
In this divorce case, Father/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) allocation of parenting time; (2) inclusion of special provisions in the parenting plan; (3) finding that Father was willfully underemployed; (4) award of an upward deviation in Father’s child support obligation; (5) division of the marital estate; and (6) grant of Mother/Appellee’s petition for divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. Discerning no error, we affirm. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. |
Madison | Court of Appeals |