APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Christopher Thomas Thompson, appeals from the Weakley County Circuit
Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to develop a
defense strategy or otherwise investigate possible defenses and that his guilty plea was
involuntary. Discerning no error, we affirm.

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.

Defendant, Bradley J. Cooper, was indicted for one count of aggravated stalking and one count of harassment. The case went to trial, and the jury found Defendant guilty as charged.  The trial court merged Defendant’s harassment conviction into his aggravated stalking conviction and sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of two years’ incarceration.  On appeal, Defendant argues (1) his conviction for aggravated stalking violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 8; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated stalking; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to take judicial notice, admit testimony regarding, or allow him to otherwise argue that orders of protection generally expire after one year; and (4) his conviction for aggravated stalking and harassment violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. After review, we find that Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and we vacate Defendant’s aggravated stalking conviction.  We affirm Defendant’s conviction for harassment in Count 2 but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment form, removing the condition that Count 2 is merged with Count 1. 

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the ground of persistent conditions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3).  Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support this ground and the trial court’s determination that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

A Macon County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jeffery D. Strong, of selling dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III controlled substance. The Petitioner later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of the audio recording of the drug transaction; and (2) failing to raise the recording’s admission as an error in the motion for a new trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. In addition to his ineffective assistance claim, the Petitioner also contends on appeal that the post-conviction court erred by failing to resolve the question of pretrial jail credits owed to him. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

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.

Defendant, Jay Junior Heifner, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s revocation of the three-year term of probation imposed for his 2021 guilty-pleaded conviction of theft, arguing that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke his probation because the violation warrant was void and that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. We conclude that because the affidavit in support of the violation warrant failed to comply with the statutory and rule-based requirements, the affidavit was void, the violation warrant was void, and the ensuing revocation proceeding was void. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether, in the absence of a validly issued probation violation warrant, Defendant’s term of probation has expired.

Wesley Allen Lacey, Defendant, was charged in a presentment by the Knox County Grand
Jury with one count of second degree murder and one count of delivery of fentanyl in an
amount less than fifteen grams. A jury found Defendant guilty of second degree murder
and casual exchange. As a result, he was sentenced to fifteen years to be served at 100%
for the second degree murder conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the
casual exchange conviction, to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of
fifteen years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant
appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for second
degree murder and the admission of testimony from a medical examiner who did not
perform the autopsy of the victim. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments
of the trial court.

Unhappy with a planning commission’s approval of a subdivision concept plan, a not-forprofit
corporation and an adjoining property owner petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The
court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It concluded that the
commission’s approval of a concept plan was not final for purposes of judicial review. We
agree that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction albeit on a different basis.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B by the defendant below, Steven R. Powell, regarding his motion for recusal of the chancellor. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal, we determine it to be fatally deficient. We therefore dismiss the appeal

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The Defendant, John Collin Kilpatrick, was convicted by a Lewis County Circuit Court jury of possession of drug paraphernalia and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of eight years at 85% release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding exculpatory information of addresses on file with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (“Board” or “Board of Probation and Parole”); that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct an in camera review of the Board’s records that were in the possession of the State, by denying the Defendant’s request for a special jury instruction on possession, and by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the State’s discovery violations; and that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this probate action, the executor of the decedent’s estate alleged that the defendant, who was the decedent’s wife, had exercised undue influence over the decedent.  Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding that the defendant did not have a confidential relationship with the decedent.  The plaintiff has appealed.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.                                                                

This is an appeal from a final order entered on December 10, 2025. The notice of appeal
was electronically filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals on January 14, 2026, more
than thirty days from the date of entry of the orders from which the appellant is seeking to
appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to
consider this appeal.

A defendant appeals a judgment arising out of a dispute over residential electrical work. Because the defendant did not file his notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Appellate Court within thirty days after entry of the judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Defendant, Dewayne Winslow, was convicted by a Knox County jury of possession of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony, failure to carry vehicle registration, and unlawful possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective 17-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the narcotics and firearm found in his vehicle and by allowing the State to introduce Defendant’s prior drug conviction as evidence of intent. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Charlie M. Gardner, was convicted in May 1999 by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of one count of first degree murder and two counts of reckless aggravated assault.  State v. Gardner, No. M1999-02214-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 306227, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 1, 2001).  The Defendant’s convictions were affirmed on appeal.  Id. at *13.  On March 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to correct clerical errors in his judgments of conviction, which the trial court granted on April 11, 2025.  The Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on May 12, 2025, arguing it was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the entry of his corrected judgments.  The trial court summarily dismissed the Defendant’s motion for a new trial as untimely.  The Defendant appeals.  Discerning no error, we affirm. 

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.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. We reverse.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, filed by Samuel Forrester Hunter (“Father”) seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Father, and finding no error, we affirm the denial of the recusal motion.

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.

The Defendant, Cliesha D. Tedunjaye, was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of driving under the influence (“DUI) and DUI per se, Class A misdemeanors; possessing a handgun while under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor; violating the open container law, a Class C misdemeanor; and failing to maintain her lane of travel, a Class C misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant received an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as forty-eight hours in jail and the remainder on probation supervised by community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions of DUI, DUI per se, and possession of a handgun while under the influence because the State failed to prove her intoxication. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court

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.

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.