APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal is hereby DENIED. The Defendant’s Motion to Supplement the Record is also DENIED as moot. Costs associated with this appeal are hereby taxed to the Defendant.

Jarvis T. Emerson, Defendant, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated burglary, three counts of assault, two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm. He received an effective sentence of fifty-five years. Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to establish his identity; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the assault charges because the proof did not show the victims reasonably feared imminent bodily injury; (3) the evidence was insufficient to show Defendant was previously convicted of a felony; (4) the conviction for especially aggravated burglary should be reduced to aggravated burglary because the State relied on serious bodily injury to prosecute both the attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated burglary convictions; (5) the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentencing by failing to find the required State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995), factors; (6) the State failed to prove Defendant was a Range II, multiple offender; and (7) Apprendi mandates that the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt the serious bodily injury enhancement for attempted first degree murder and that this requirement makes the enhancement for attempted first degree murder the “functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense.” After a thorough review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that serious bodily injury is not an element of attempted first degree murder, such that a prosecution for both attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated burglary are prohibited by statute. We also determine Defendant has waived any challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and any challenge to his offender classification. However, we remand for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings before ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Accordingly, Defendant’s convictions are affirmed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a hearing on the manner of service of the sentences.

The Defendant, Leon Noel, pled guilty to several offenses over a period of years, and the trial court suspended each of his sentences to probation. In 2024, the State alleged that he violated a special condition requiring inpatient drug treatment. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court found a violation on that basis and ordered him to serve the balance of each of his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his conduct amounted only to a technical violation and that the trial court erred in revoking all of his suspended sentence. Upon our review, we conclude that the record does not establish whether the treatment condition applied to the suspended sentences in four of the cases, and we remand those cases for additional findings. As to the remaining case, which includes suspended felony and misdemeanor sentences, we hold that the violation constituted a first instance of a technical violation. The trial court, therefore, lacked authority to revoke the suspended felony sentence, but the revocation of the suspended misdemeanor sentence was within its discretion. We accordingly affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

A Coffee County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Gavin Allen Clark, with first-degree felony murder by aggravated child abuse (count one), first-degree felony murder by child neglect (count two), aggravated child abuse (count three), and aggravated child neglect (count four). Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide in counts one and two, and he was convicted as charged in counts three and four of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. He received an effective sentence of twenty-three years in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following issues for review: (1) as an issue of first impression in Tennessee, whether the verdict is defective for ambiguity because within each count the jury simultaneously convicted and acquitted; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to act or serve as the thirteenth juror; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction of aggravated child neglect; (4) whether the trial court erred in deciding the McDaniel motions when the trial judge employed an erroneous legal standard and conducted an arbitrary hearing; (5) whether the trial court erred in permitting witnesses to testify about the Defendant’s callous demeanor; (6) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress data from the Defendant’s cell phone; (7) whether the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; (8) whether the State violated the Defendant’s speedy trial rights; and (9) whether the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal. 1 Upon review, we conclude that the verdicts returned by the jury in this case were ambiguous because they purport to simultaneously convict and acquit the Defendant. As such, the verdicts are unenforceable and cannot be given full effect. Under the circumstances of this case, we also conclude that the Defendant’s convictions are not barred from retrial based on double jeopardy principles, and we remand for a new trial. We further conclude that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty as the thirteenth juror, which also mandates reversal of the Defendant’s convictions, and remand for a new trial. We address the Defendant’s remaining issues in the event of further appellate review.

While I agree with the lion’s share of the majority opinion’s meticulous review of the issues presented by Defendant on appeal, there are a couple of distinct issues on which I disagree: whether the trial court erred in failing to act or serve as the thirteenth juror; and the proper remedy for retrial of offenses, based upon an ambiguous verdict. For the reasons set forth below, I find that the trial court satisfied its role as the thirteenth juror. Furthermore, on retrial, I conclude that the State can proceed on the original charges of felony murder (counts 1 and 2), aggravated child abuse (count three), and aggravated child neglect (count four). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part from the majority opinion on these issues.

Defendant, Joseph Kade Abbott, pled guilty in two consolidated cases to three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure in exchange for concurrent six-year sentences, with the trial court to determine the manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant to six years’ incarceration to be served at 100%. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Sedrick Darnell Cummings, pled guilty to weapons-related offenses after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized following the execution of a search warrant at his residence. As a part of the Defendant’s plea agreement, he sought to reserve a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s decision that the affidavit underlying the search warrant established probable cause to search based upon an anonymous tip and the smell of marijuana. Following our review, we conclude that the certified question clearly identifies the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved as required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and that, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the search warrant failed to establish probable cause. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the case is dismissed.

The Defendant, Cleotha Abston, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of eighty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude reference to a firearm recovered from his vehicle following his arrest, (2) the trial court erred by denying his request to instruct the jury regarding lost or destroyed evidence pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion to bifurcate his charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Mikel Cecil, for an
accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The
Defendant asks this Court to review the trial judge’s order denying his motion to recuse.

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendant, Jordan Worthington, for review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify the conditions of his pretrial release. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes.

A Knox County jury convicted the defendant, James Robert Howell, of four counts of
sexual battery by an authority figure and one count of assault by offensive or provocative
touching, for which he received an effective sentence of four years and six months in
confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support his convictions. The defendant also contends that the trial court
erred in admitting hearsay evidence, in admitting evidence of prior abuse, and in imposing
an excessive sentence. Additionally, the defendant claims improper argument by the State
affected the verdict. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following the denial of a motion to suppress, the defendant, Mark Ketron, pled guilty to
driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, and violation of the light law, for which
he was sentenced to an effective term of eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended
to probation after service of forty-eight hours in jail. On appeal, the defendant asserts that,
as part of his plea, he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments of the parties,
we conclude the defendant failed to properly certify a question of law pursuant to Rule
37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this Court is without
jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant, Omerrieal Dywane Woods, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal
Court jury of one count of facilitation of reckless homicide, two counts of facilitation of
attempted aggravated assault, and one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to
go armed. The defendant was sentenced to an effective six years in the Department of
Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his
conviction. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

A Washington County jury convicted the defendant, Joshua M. Hammonds, of first-degree
murder in perpetration of a felony, theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than
$60,000, and evading arrest with risk of death. After a sentencing hearing, the defendant
received a sentence of life in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence
presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for first-degree murder in
perpetration of a felony. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the
applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Petitioner, Baleke Kromah, of sexual battery by an authority figure. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction. See State v. Kromah, No. M2011-01813-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 781600, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. March 1, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 17, 2013). In 2024, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which the coram nobis court dismissed as untimely. The Petitioner appealed, and after a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we dismiss this appeal because the Petitioner failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

Petitioner, Brittany Faith Swafford, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that she received the effective assistance of trial counsel. Petitioner argues trial counsel’s failure to retain an expert witness favorable to the defense and to adequately investigate Petitioner’s then undiagnosed mental health condition constituted the ineffective assistance of counsel. She further argues, in the context of her ineffective assistance claim, that trial counsel’s failure to investigate her undiagnosed mental health condition prevented her from entering a knowing and voluntary plea. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the fivecount
indictment against him on denial of speedy trial grounds. Following a thorough
review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we reverse the trial
court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, reinstate the indictments against the
defendant, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Aaron Joseph Couvertier, entered an open plea to one count of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed a two-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction at 100 percent service. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his health care liability action. Because Appellant has not complied with appellate briefing requirements, we dismiss this appeal.

In May 2023, the Greene County Grand Jury issued a presentment against Defendant, Jacob Columbus Deal, charging him with three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure and three counts of aggravated statutory rape. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated statutory rape to be sentenced out of range at ten years as a Range I offender at thirty percent with the trial court to determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered Defendant to serve his entire ten-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying him alternative sentencing. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Blount County jury convicted the Defendant, Phillip Warren Trotter, of statutory rape by an authority figure, incest, attempted statutory rape by an authority figure, and attempted incest. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On August 8, 2025, the Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgments. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 seeking review of the trial court’s order denying bail pending appeal. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-144. The State has filed a response in opposition to the motion. Upon full consideration of the motion, the response, and the applicable legal authority, the Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

The Defendant has filed an application for interlocutory appeal, see Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 9, seeking review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his vehicle. The Defendant argues that interlocutory review of the trial court’s order is required to prevent irreparable harm and to prevent needless and protracted litigation. Tenn. R. App. P. 9(a)(1) and (2). The State has filed an answer in opposition to the Defendant’s application. Following our review, the Defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal is DENIED.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. 

The Petitioner, Rodney Miller, appeals from the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of rape of a child, aggravated statutory rape, and aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, the Petitioner initially argues that the order of the post-conviction court is insufficient for appellate review. He further claims that each of his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to the State’s improper voir dire, in failing to effectively cross-examine the victim at trial, and in failing to adequately advise the Petitioner of his right to testify. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the cumulative effect of trial counsels’ deficiencies deprived him of his right to a fair trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.