Opinions
Andrew Wylie v. State of Tennessee
Andrew Wylie, Petitioner, filed a pro se petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus (“the Habeas Petition”), claiming that his sentence had expired and that he was being illegally restrained of his liberty due to the trial court’s refusal to award sentence credits for the time Petitioner served while on community corrections (“street credit”). The trial court summarily dismissed the Habeas Petition for failing to state a colorable claim. Because Petitioner failed to follow the mandatory procedural provisions of the habeas corpus statute, we affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of the Habeas Petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Christopher Pillow
Defendant, Timothy Christopher Pillow, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent felon, evading arrest with a motor vehicle, and identity theft. At sentencing, Defendant requested an alternative sentence under the Community Corrections Act. Instead, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ incarceration, finding that Defendant’s history of criminal conduct and the need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the current offenses warranted confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for community corrections. Following our review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert-Henry Butts IV v. Jacob Berti
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. We reverse. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amir Hassan Spears
The Defendant, Amir Hassan Spears, appeals from his convictions for first degree felony |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood
The Defendant, Wayne Morris Flood, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s probation revocation for his eight-year sentence for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 gram or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for the trial court to reinstate the Defendant to probation. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Remmia Radhakrishnan Sukapurath v. Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in Appellant’s petition, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood (Dissenting)
I write separately because I reach a different conclusion than the majority as to the appropriate response to the trial court’s deficiency. I agree that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings on the record regarding the grounds on which it found that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. However, I disagree that a de novo review of the record supports a conclusion that the Defendant committed a technical violation rather than absconding. I will endeavor to briefly explain my reasoning. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Alan Gordon v. Heather Elizabeth Gordon
Husband and Wife both sought a divorce, with each attributing fault to the other. During the divorce process, Wife alleged to the police, the Department of Children’s Services, and Husband’s military employer that Husband had abused her and their child. Husband denied the allegations and responded with a petition to hold Wife in criminal contempt for making false allegations of abuse. The contempt petition and the military investigation into Wife’s claims remained open at the time of Wife’s deposition. Wife refused, allegedly based on these open matters, to answer questions at her deposition, pleading the Fifth Amendment. The deposition was relocated to the courthouse, where the trial court held an impromptu hearing on the matter. During the hearing, the judge informed Wife that her refusal to answer questions could result in her being held in civil contempt. However, instead of holding Wife in civil contempt, with no warning, the trial court struck Wife’s pleadings and entered a default judgment. Addressing Husband’s pleadings and testimony thereupon, the trial court thereafter entered a final order dividing the parties’ property and fashioning a parenting plan. Wife appealed, arguing, among other things, that the sanctions of striking her pleadings and issuing a default judgment were improper. Because we conclude that Wife had insufficient notice, we vacate the trial court’s sanctions order and remand the case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Jones
The Defendant, Jarvis Jones, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that trial court failed to properly adhere to the two-step consideration for probation revocation and, as a result, abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant’s probation and that the record, considered as a whole, supports full revocation as the appropriate consequence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrin Numbers et al. v. Robert Snyder et al.
The plaintiffs in this case are two individuals who transferred a substantial amount of money to a business. After the business failed to repay the plaintiffs, they filed a lawsuit against the business and its owner, alleging various wrongdoings and seeking to pierce the corporate veil of the business. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs had proven all of their claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages against both the business and its owner. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court failed to apply the proper test for piercing the corporate veil and failed to provide sufficient clarity in its damages award. We, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Pirtle, in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Mark A. Pirtle, deceased v. John R. Howerton et al.
The plaintiff, in his capacity as the executor of the decedent’s estate, commenced this action for breach of a stock purchase agreement against the decedent’s former business partner and the business that they owned together. The agreement comprised two documents: one requiring an initial lump-sum payment of $1 million, and one requiring payment of “$8,000.00 per month for 96 months and two new automobiles with lease payments or purchase payments not to exceed $1,500.00 per month for 96 months.” The decedent also signed a handwritten note in which he agreed to forgive “all debts” if the former business partner honored “all agreements for 1 (one) year after [the decedent’s] death.” The plaintiff later moved for summary judgment based on evidence that the defendants made only 17 monthly cash payments and only 114 of the vehicle payments. In response, the defendants asserted that they made a lump sum payment of $40,000 “in full satisfaction of the debt” before the decedent’s death. The defendants also argued that the debt was forgiven pursuant to the handwritten note. Regardless, the defendants maintained that there was no evidence of missed payments. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding it undisputed that the defendants made only 17 payments. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of his attorney’s fees and costs under a “Hold Harmless and Indemnity” clause in the purchase agreement. But the court found a dispute of material fact on whether the defendants breached their obligation to make all car payments. At trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict due to the plaintiff’s alleged failure to prove damages. The trial court granted the motion because there was no evidence that the defendants missed any car payments. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment in all respects except for the award of attorney’s fees, which was based on an incorrect interpretation of the contract. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gardner Ford
The Defendant, Patrick Gardner Ford, petitioned the trial court to enter a guilty plea to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony crime of violence, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(b)(1) (Supp. 2022). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was to be sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in confinement. However, the State conditioned this agreement on the Defendant’s appearance at a later court date and his good behavior up to this court date; the State also informed the Defendant that his failure to fulfill these conditions would subject him to a sentencing hearing and the imposition of a sentence in his required sentencing range. When the Defendant failed to appear at this later hearing, the trial court conducted a full sentencing hearing, ultimately sentencing the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to twelve years in confinement for his conviction offense. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for an alternative sentence, specifically a sentence through the community corrections program. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Acute Care Holdings, LLC v. Houston County, Tennessee
This appeal follows our remand in Acute Care Holdings, LLC v. Houston Cnty., No. M2018-01534-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2337434 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2019) (hereinafter “Acute Care I”). The dispute involves the alleged breach by Houston County of a Letter of Intent pertaining to the purchase of a hospital in Erin, Tennessee. On remand, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Acute Care Holdings, LLC (“Acute Care”), by granting its motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that Houston County breached the Letter of Intent. Thereafter, the trial court entered an Agreed Final Judgment awarding Acute Care a judgment of $1,218,062.63 and prejudgment interest of $730,036.65. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kansas B. et al.
The appellant is a physician assistant accused by the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) of sexually abusing a stepchild. After one appeal of the dependency and neglect case, the appellant and DCS entered into an agreed order to resolve the matter. According to the appellant, he did not stipulate in the agreed order that he engaged in the alleged misconduct. In a related criminal case, the appellant was indicted by a grand jury and ultimately entered a no contest plea. He did not admit guilt, no conviction was entered, and all charges will be dismissed and expunged if he completes his probation. The Tennessee Department of Health (“DOH” or “the Department”) informed the appellant that it had opened a case against him before the Board of Physician Assistants regarding his fitness to practice “due to the allegations in the [dependency and neglect] matter.” The Department sought certain records from the juvenile court case, and the appellant opposed it. The trial court granted the Department’s motion, and the appellant appealed. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Ellis
The Defendant, Corey Ellis, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Batiste, et al. v. The Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment, et al.
The president of a homeowner’s association filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by a local zoning board. The chancery court dismissed the petition, finding that the petition was insufficiently verified. After review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Denisha Simmons
The defendant, Denisha Simmons, appeals the order of the trial court revoking her |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua F. Linebarger
Defendant, Joshua F. Linebarger, pleaded guilty to two counts of felony theft, reckless |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jansen L. Smith
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the Defendant was convicted by a Sequatchie County Jury of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 55-10-401. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days of supervised probation after service of twenty days in jail on weekends. In this appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting evidence obtained from an unlawful detention. The Defendant contends his arrest was without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and unsupported by probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Because the subsequent detention of the Defendant exceeded the duration of a Terry-type investigatory stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that any evidence seized as a result should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the Defendant’s conviction, and dismiss the charge in this case. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Laura Kisana v. Isaac Caldiero
The appellant, Isaac Caldiero (“Appellant”), filed a notice of appeal with this Court in September 2025, which states that Appellant is appealing the August 8, 2025 order of the Hamilton County Circuit Court (“the Trial Court”). Upon receiving the appellate record in this appeal, this Court reviewed the record on appeal to determine if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(b). |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph McDowell
The defendant, Joseph McDowell, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
SIGNAL PUMP, LLC D/B/A SIGNAL POWER v. ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.
This appeal concerns an unsuccessful business relationship between two companies. Signal Pump, LLC (“Signal”), a company that builds LED light towers, contracted with Arrow Electronics, Inc. (“Arrow”), a major supplier of electronics components, for Arrow to become Signal’s exclusive supplier. The relationship broke down as Arrow failed to timely supply Signal with parts and Signal failed to pay Arrow. Signal sued Arrow in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraud. New York substantive law governed this lawsuit as provided for by the parties’ agreement. Arrow filed a counterclaim against Signal for breach of contract based on Signal’s alleged failure to fully compensate Arrow for its products and services. According to Signal, Arrow’s failure to timely supply parts per the agreement cost Signal massive losses in profits it otherwise would have earned. Arrow, in turn, has asserted throughout that Signal continually changed its requests for parts. After a bench trial, the Trial Court found that both parties breached the agreement. The Trial Court awarded Arrow damages for Signal’s failure to pay. However, the Trial Court declined to award Signal any damages for lost profits, citing a liability limitation clause in the parties’ agreement. Signal appeals. We hold that the liability limitation clause is an exculpatory clause. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment in that respect. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wayne Craddock
Defendant, Jesse Wayne Craddock, appeals his Wilson County Criminal Court jury convictions of felony murder and aggravated child neglect, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support those convictions, that the statute proscribing aggravated child neglect is unconstitutionally vague, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person, that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on intoxication, and that the imposition of a life sentence for his conviction of felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child neglect amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stanley H. Trezevant, et al. v. Collierville Auto Center, Inc.
At the conclusion of proof in a bench trial in a breach of lease action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the basis that both plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the individual plaintiff’s lack of standing rendered his claim moot but vacate the trial court’s decision regarding the plaintiff company. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Sumpter v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Teresa Sumpter, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |