APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In proceedings to terminate his parental rights, a father who lived out of state claimed that he was not served with process.  The case went to trial based upon substitute service, and the father’s parental rights were terminated.  Because we conclude that the father was not properly served, we vacate the judgment terminating his parental rights.

The Petitioner, Bernard Woodard, was convicted of burglary, theft of property valued at $2500 or more, and felony evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner, as a career offender, to an effective eighteen-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgments. State v. Woodard, No. M2020- 01538-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 5467384, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2021), no perm. app. filed. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging, among other claims, that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, this court reversed and concluded that the petition raised colorable claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. Woodard v. State, No. M2022-00162-CCA-R3-PC, 2022 WL 4932885, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2022), no perm. app. filed. On remand, the post-conviction court held a hearing and later issued an order denying relief. The Petitioner appeals, maintaining that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Keinesa Lillard, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief challenging her convictions for attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, especially aggravated robbery, evading arrest by use of a motor vehicle involving risk of death or serious bodily injury to others, and four counts of simple possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on her claim that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to communicate with her regarding the State’s proof; (2) failing to review discovery materials with her; and (3) failing to discuss pretrial motions and strategy with her. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This matter is before the Court upon the pro se Appellant’s petition for an accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, § 2. The Appellant asks this Court to review the trial court’s July 31, 2025 order denying his motion to recuse Judge Donald Allen. The State has filed a response in opposition to the petition. Having reviewed the petition, the supporting documents, and the State’s response, this Court has determined that additional briefing and oral argument are unnecessary. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.05, 2.06. The trial court’s order is hereby AFFIRMED.

James Patrick Stout, Defendant, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 as well as the denial of his motion for recusal and motion for contempt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Lacey Jones, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion1 to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 based on his claim that he was illegally sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Christopher Alan Ayotte, pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor with greater than one hundred images, two counts of rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered an effective sentence of one hundred and twenty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him. Upon review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form as to Count One of Case No. 2023-B-1260 reflecting the defendant's multiple offender status.

Petitioner, Kevin D. Buford, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to seek a continuance, failing to establish a defense, calling him to testify, and failing to call an expert witness. He further argues that trial counsel’s representation resulted in prejudice and that he is entitled to relief based on the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and arguments of counsel, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

An inmate at Turney Center Industrial Complex (“TCIX”) was convicted of introducing drugs into the complex by the prison’s disciplinary board. After failed administrative appeals, the inmate filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Hickman County. The inmate alleged that the TCIX Disciplinary Board and TCIX staff violated multiple disciplinary policies and that there was no material evidence to support his conviction. The trial court denied his petition. This appeal followed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the plaintiffs properly served the corporate defendant with process. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did so because the employee who signed for the documents was an appointed subagent of the defendant’s registered agent. Having reviewed the record and relevant authorities, we reverse.

On August 27, 2025, Defendant Timothy Laquan Davis, Jr. filed an application seeking an extraordinary appeal of the trial court’s order, filed on July 24, 2025, denying his motion to strike the State’s notice to seek enhanced punishment in this case pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(d). Tenn. R. App. P. 10. Pursuant to prior order, the State filed its response on September 8, 2025. In the meantime, on September 2, 2025, Defendant Braze Roland Rucker filed an almost identical application for permission to appeal. Given the fact Mr. Davis and Mr. Rucker are co-defendants, and considering the identical issue being raised, the court hereby consolidates the two applications for purposes of its review. Tenn. R. App. P. 16(b). Upon full consideration, the applications are denied for the reasons stated below.

An extraordinary appeal may be granted from an interlocutory order of a trial court if this Court determines the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review” or “if necessary for complete determination of the action on appeal.” Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a). A party must obtain permission from this Court for an extraordinary appeal; it is not a matter of right. Id. To that end, an application for permission to appeal must contain a statement of the question(s) presented for review, a statement of the facts, a statement of the reason(s) supporting an extraordinary appeal, and the relief sought. Tenn. R. App. P. 10(c). Furthermore, the application must contain a copy of the trial court order from which an appeal is being sought, as well as copies of other parts of the record necessary for determination of the application, such as the transcript of any hearing held on the motion at issue. Id. Because, generally, there is no record on appeal when a party seeks an extraordinary appeal, it is the party’s responsibility to provide this Court with an ad hoc 09/12/2025 2 record of the proceeding below. The Defendants’ applications are adequate for this Court’s review.

The Defendant, John Wendell Lewis, appeals from his guilty-pleaded conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39- 17-1307(b)(1)(A) (Supp. 2022) (subsequently amended). The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant, a Range I offender, contends the court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Lionel Vashon Champion, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony; possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony; use or unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, Class D felonies; four counts of unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense, Class C felonies; unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence, a Class C felony; and eight counts of unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony having previously been convicted of a felony drug offense, Class D felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417 (Supp. 2022) (subsequently amended) (possession of a controlled substance), 39-17-425 (2018) (possession of drug paraphernalia); 39-17-1324 (Supp. 2024) (armed dangerous felonies); 39-17-1307 (Supp. 2022) (subsequently amended) (carrying or possession of weapons). The trial court sentenced the Defendant, a career offender, to serve an effective sentence of forty-two years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant’s incoming and outgoing text messages, (2) the court erred in permitting a witness to read one of the text messages to the jury, and (3) the court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Keenan Alexander, appeals from the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s jury-trial convictions for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of drug paraphernalia, speeding, and failing to maintain financial responsibility and his effective two-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Brian Michael Jarrett, pleaded guilty to two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, two counts of incest, and one count of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-eight years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing partial consecutive sentences. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Kevin Leon Brazelton, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction
relief, maintaining that his attorney at trial was ineffective. Following our
review of the record, we remand the judgment of the post-conviction court for further
findings concerning the timeliness of the petition.

Serena N. Hammond, Defendant, was indicted by a Knox County Grand Jury for one count
of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Count 1, one count of aggravated burglary
acting in concert with two or more other persons in Count 2, and one count of attempted
second degree murder in Count 3. Defendant was convicted as charged in Counts 1 and 2
and convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter in Count 3. Defendant was sentenced
to an effective sentence of ten years in incarceration as a standard offender. Defendant
appealed, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for
aggravated burglary acting in concert; (2) the trial court committed reversible error by
admitting photographs of a gun and magazine recovered from a car in which she was pulled
over fifteen days after the incident; (3) the trial court committed reversible error by
admitting recordings of Defendant’s phone call made from jail to a co-defendant; (4) the
trial court improperly considered Defendant’s false testimony at trial and the location of
the offense in enhancing her sentence for aggravated burglary acting in concert; and (5) the
cumulative effect of these errors deprived her of the right to a fair trial. After review, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Lauren Taylor ("Employee") sustained a compensable injury on May 12, 2019, while
working for John and Stephanie Ingram, LLC ("Employer"). The Court of Workers'
Compensation Claims ("trial court") entered an order approving a settlement agreement on
August 24, 2021. Giving rise to the instant appeal, Employee filed a motion to set aside the
settlement agreement on January 24, 2024. The trial court denied the motion on two
independent grounds. First, the trial court determined that the motion was not timely filed.
Second, the trial court found that, even if the motion was timely, Employee had failed to
show that relief was warranted. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("Appeals
Board") affirmed on both grounds. Employee has appealed and the appeal has been referred
to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 51. We affirm.

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, David James Paul, was convicted of two counts of driving under the influence. The trial court merged the convictions and imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress. He contends that the State failed to establish reasonable suspicion for the initial seizure because the officers who detained him did not testify, leaving the record without proof of the circumstances justifying the stop. The State responds that reasonable suspicion was established through a “be on the lookout” dispatch report, or BOLO, and the testimony of the arresting officer, who arrived after the Defendant had been detained. Upon our review, we hold that because the State offered no admissible evidence concerning the circumstances of the initial seizure, it fell short of establishing that the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse and vacate the judgments of the trial court and remand for dismissal.

This matter is before the Court upon the Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. See T.C.A. § 40-30-117(c); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 10(B). The Petitioner argues that Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), established a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law regarding the application of the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony. Upon our review of the application and the State’s response, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioner’s motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.

The defendant, Gerald Lovelace, was convicted by a Stewart County Circuit Court jury of three counts of first-degree felony murder, which were merged into one conviction and for which the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to law enforcement; (2) his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated; (3) the trial court erred in allowing witness testimony concerning his prior purchase of drugs from the victim, his “habit” of keeping a gun under the hood of his car, and his being “suited and booted” when he left the house the night of the murder; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this action, the plaintiff, through her conservators, asserted health care liability and breach of contract claims against the senior living facility where she resides and its parent corporation. Following some amount of discovery, the parties filed competing motions for partial summary judgment concerning the breach of contract and financial claims. The trial court conducted a hearing regarding the motions and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the senior living facility based on the terms of the contract signed by the plaintiff. The trial court further certified the judgment as final. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiff in this landlord-tenant dispute sought a temporary injunction in the general sessions court, asking the court to force the defendant landlords to repair an air conditioning unit. The general sessions court granted a temporary injunction and later held a final hearing, after which it awarded the plaintiff $24,793.63 in damages. The defendants appealed to the circuit court which, following a bench trial, dismissed the plaintiff’s case. The circuit court, inter alia, concluded that the plaintiff offered no proof of his damages. The plaintiff timely appealed the circuit court’s judgment to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this case involving termination of the adoptive mother's and father's parental rights to their child, the Greene County Juvenile Court ("trial court") determined that the statutory ground for termination—severe child abuse—had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest. The parents have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A Grundy County jury convicted the defendant, John W. Smith, of one count of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, one count of attempted second-degree murder, one count of aggravated assault, and eight counts of reckless endangerment, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-two years. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in admitting the 911 calls, in refusing to admit Jerome Powell’s statement that “she had her gun then,” and in imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. However, we reverse the imposition of consecutive sentences and remand to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for consideration of the consecutive sentencing factors outlined in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995). We also remand for corrected judgment forms in counts five, fourteen, and fifteen.