APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Kerion Dawson, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to mitigated statutory rape, a Class E felony, and received a two-year sentence to be served as sixty days in confinement and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

This cause came before the court upon the application of the Defendant, pro se, seeking an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. More specifically, the Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s October 30, 2025, order directing her to undergo a mental health evaluation to determine her competency to stand trial and her mental state at the time of the charged offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-7- 301(a). The Defendant also requests a stay of mental health evaluation proceedings.

In 2006, the Defendant, Joshua Lee Shaw, pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a Schedule II substance with intent to deliver, a Class C felony, and simple possession of a Schedule VI substance, a Class A misdemeanor.  The trial court sentenced him to four years of supervised probation.  He violated his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana.  The trial court ordered the Defendant’s punishment for the violation to be for “time served” and returned him to probation.  The Defendant successfully completed the remainder of his probation.  In 2024, the Defendant filed a petition to expunge his record of his two offenses pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101(k).  After a hearing, the trial court declined his request. The Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred.  We conclude that the Defendant does not meet the plain language requirements of an “eligible petitioner” in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101(k), and thus we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Paul Rogers, pled guilty to a nine-count information charging aggravated assault, evading arrest, and reckless endangerment, among other offenses. As part of the plea, the parties agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to an effective term of eight years, with the trial court determining the manner of service. Following a sentencing 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 should have granted an alternative sentence. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Christopher Alan Hauser, and four co-defendants were convicted of multiple counts of filing a lien without a reasonable basis and multiple counts of forgery.  On direct appeal, we affirmed Petitioner’s convictions.  State v. Lyons, No. M2019-01946-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 1083703, at *23, perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Crim. App. March 22, 2021).  The Tennessee Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the convictions.  State v. Lyons, 669 S.W.3d 775, 779-80 (Tenn. 2023).  Petitioner, a non-lawyer, filed a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of himself and his co-defendants.  The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing as untimely.  Petitioner appealed on behalf of himself and on behalf of his co-defendants.   After review, we disregard claims alleged by Petitioner for the co-defendants and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court as to Petitioner.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her five children. The juvenile court found three grounds for termination and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests based on clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Roosevelt Morris, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his convictions for two counts of attempted first degree murder and his effective forty-seven-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition because his sentence was imposed in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004). We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

A high school student suffered a serious injury when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye. The injured student sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable. The circuit court granted the School System’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the student’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant worked as a cashier for the Shelby County Trustee’s Office and was terminated after she experienced a cash shortage and attempted to force balance. The Civil Service Merit Board conducted a review hearing and upheld the termination. The appellant sought judicial review in the chancery court, which likewise upheld the termination. The appellant filed this appeal claiming that her procedural due process rights were violated, her termination was not in accordance with the policies and procedures of Shelby County, and that the Civil Service Merit Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellees filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and an injunction, pursuant to the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-14-101, et seq. (“the TVWA”), against a former employee, the appellant.  The appellees alleged, inter alia, that the appellant was committing unlawful violence at the workplace by stalking the corporation, the chief executive officer (“CEO”), and the employees.  The alleged stalking consisted mostly of public Facebook posts by the appellant.  The Chancery Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”) granted the appellees a temporary restraining order prior to the hearing on the injunction.  After the hearing, the Trial Court found that the appellant had committed unlawful violence at the workplace via stalking based upon the appellant’s persistent Facebook posts about the appellees and granted the appellees an injunction against the appellant.  The Trial Court also found the appellant in contempt for eleven violations of the temporary restraining order.  The Trial Court awarded the appellees their attorney’s fees. This appeal ensued.  Based upon our review, we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Ricky A. Davis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief,
arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was
ineffective by permitting the jury to hear that he had a prior conviction for causing bodily
injury while using or displaying a deadly weapon, failing to challenge the admissibility of
testimony that Petitioner had possessed a gun the day before the shooting, and failing to
object to the introduction of the key witness’s prior statement to police. Upon review of the
entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm
the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This matter concerns criminal contempt and an order of protection. Jolene Renee (Scholl) Bauer (“Wife”) and Michael Ray Scholl (“Husband”) divorced in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). Husband was ordered not to go around Wife’s work or residence. Wife later filed a motion for criminal contempt against Husband alleging that he went around her residence, the parties’ former marital residence, in violation of the court’s order. She also sought an order of protection, citing Husband’s history of violence toward her. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Wife an order of protection. The Trial Court found Husband guilty on two counts of criminal contempt for texting Wife’s neighbor to ask what was happening with Wife and the house. Husband appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s granting Wife an order of protection. However, we find that Husband did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him and that the evidence is insufficient to support the criminal contempt findings by the Trial Court of Husband’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse the findings of criminal contempt against Husband. We therefore affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Defendant, Terrence Sanders, appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original sentence in confinement, arguing that there was insufficient proof that his new arrest for domestic assault constituted a non-technical violation of his probation and that the trial court erred by failing to make appropriate findings in support of its decisions. We agree that the trial court failed to make adequate findings in support of its decisions to revoke the Defendant’s probation and order execution of the original judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the trial court to make additional findings, in accordance with State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022), regarding whether the State proved a non-technical violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence and, if so, the appropriate consequence to be imposed.

The trial court entered a final decree in a contentious divorce. Based on the proof at trial, the court classified, valued, and divided the marital estate. It also awarded the wife alimony in solido to equalize the division, alimony in futuro, and attorney’s fees. Both parties raise issues on appeal. Upon review, we conclude the court erred in omitting two marital assets from the division and in calculating a marital debt, which skewed the division in the husband’s favor. Because the court expressly intended to make an equal division, we modify the court’s equalization award. Otherwise, we affirm.

A mother appeals a juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to her child based on three statutory grounds. She also challenges the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s denial of her motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm.

This appeal concerns a detainer action. Mekey Adem, Said Moammed, and Adem Homes, LLC (“Adem”) (“Landlords,” collectively) sought to evict Alexandria Hart (“Tenant”) for non-payment of rent. The General Sessions Court for Shelby County (“the General Sessions Court”) ruled against Tenant, who then appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”). Tenant attempted to post her birth certificate as the possessory bond to allow her to remain on the premises while her appeal was pending. The Circuit Court rejected this and granted Adem a writ of possession. Ultimately, Tenant was ordered to pay rent she owed plus reasonable attorney’s fees. Tenant appeals. We affirm. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Adem is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, the amount of which the Circuit Court is to determine on remand.

Defendant, Charles Blankenship, was convicted by a Monroe County jury of possession of 300 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony. He received an effective sentence of fifty-two years’ incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that 1) he was denied his right to an impartial jury; 2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement; 3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine; 4) the trial court erred in revoking his bond during the trial; and 5) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and oral argument of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Johnny Robert Bowen, Jr., appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. The Defendant contends the admission of the drug screening report violated his confrontation rights because there was an insufficient showing of good cause or reliability. He additionally argues the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his probation by failing to consider any other alternative to incarceration. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2024, the Defendant, Kevin McDougle, filed his eighth motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Fayette County jury convicted the Petitioner, Frederick Demetrius Deberry, of aggravated rape, and the trial court imposed a twenty-year sentence to be served consecutively to a federal sentence. The Petitioner thereafter filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his conviction and sentence were void for the following reasons: (1) the trial court improperly overruled his objections to the State’s peremptory strikes of Black jurors; (2) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (3) trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (5) the court unlawfully enhanced his sentence and ordered it to run consecutively to his federal sentence; and (6) the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his earlier petition without a hearing. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the alleged claims, even if true, would render the challenged judgment voidable rather than void. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court

Defendant, Deon Lamonte Young, was convicted of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony, driving on a revoked or suspended license, driving with an open container, and failing to stop at a stop sign. The State filed notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment based on six of Defendant’s prior felony convictions. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-five year sentence with eighty-five percent release eligibility as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm; that his sentence was excessive; and that the trial court committed plain error by “abrogat[ing] its duty to ensure a fair trial when it did not address whether [Defendant] intended to stipulate to his felony status, and failed to provide adequate instructions to the jury.” However, because the appeal is untimely and the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing of the notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume custody of the children. Because the record shows that Father’s failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on that ground. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on the remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

The Defendant, Gary Douglas Craigo, Jr., appeals his Sumner County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated rape and extortion, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-nine years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for each of his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this divorce action, a husband challenges the trial court’s finding that the parties’ jointly owned real property transmuted into marital property during a nine-year marriage. The husband also asserts that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt of the final decree before the decree became a final order. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court as to the finding that the parties’ home became marital property during the marriage. We reverse, however, the finding of contempt against the husband.