APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

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.

The Defendant, Corey Ellis, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation.
The Defendant contends the trial court failed to consider the Defendant’s amenability to
future rehabilitation or whether he was a danger to others when deciding on revocation.
He also argues that the trial court failed to consider an updated risk and needs assessment.
After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Joseph McDowell, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts
of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years’
incarceration in the first count and six years’ probation in the second count, to be served
consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in 1) denying his
motion to exclude his statements concerning his sexuality and 2) ordering his sentences be
served consecutively. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral
arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Joshua F. Linebarger, pleaded guilty to two counts of felony theft, reckless
burning, and assault. For his convictions, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve an
effective ten-year sentence on supervised probation. Less than two months after the
judgments were entered, a violation of probation warrant was issued. Defendant submitted
to the violations, and the trial court held a hearing to determine the consequence of his
violations. The trial court fully revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered Defendant to
serve his sentences. Defendant appeals. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the
parties, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The defendant, Denisha Simmons, appeals the order of the trial court revoking her
probation and ordering her to serve her four-year sentence in confinement. Upon our
review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the revocation and
disposition of the defendant’s probation.

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.

Glyn Dale, the Petitioner, appeals from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s order summarily denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State in its brief requests that this court affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the State’s request is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

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.

The Petitioner, Teresa Sumpter, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial
of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s convictions for felony theft and money
laundering and her effective sixty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that
the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on her ineffective assistance of counsel
claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Rhonda Carole Sterbenz, the Defendant, was convicted by a Coffee County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence (DUI), fifth offense; DUI per se, fifth offense; violating the open container law; and failing to exercise due care. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2024) (DUI); § 55-10-416 (2024) (open container); § 55-8-136 (2024) (failure to exercise due care). The DUI convictions merged, and the Defendant received an effective sentence of two years and one day. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support her DUI convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

For events in 1994, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Tony Von Carruthers, of three counts of first degree murder, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his convictions, as well as filed for post-conviction relief, Federal habeas corpus relief, and motions to reopen. As relevant here, in 2021, the Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021. He sought fingerprint analysis comparison of prints taken from the home of two of the murder victims and known latent prints of Ronnie Irving, a man implicated in these murders by co-defendant James Montgomery in 2010. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition after concluding that the Petitioner was not entitled to mandatory or discretionary testing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Martinez Obrien Carter, was convicted in the Maury County Circuit Court of selling heroin, a Class B felony; selling fentanyl, a Class C felony; and casual exchange of fentanyl, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years; twelve and one-half years; and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) potential jurors were exposed to prejudicial extraneous information regarding his custodial status, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its cross-examination of a defense witness, (3) the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s impeachment of the State’s confidential informant; and (4) the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Based upon the oral arguments and our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Tyrome Cameron Ferguson, was charged by a Monroe County grand jury
with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment with a
deadly weapon relating to an alleged road-rage incident. On the first day of the Defendant’s
trial, the trial court found that the State had violated Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure
16 and declared a mistrial. In a subsequent hearing, the trial court ordered the State to pay
defense counsel $500 “as a contribution toward his attorney[’s] fees” as a sanction for its
discovery violation. The Defendant’s charges were ultimately dismissed by agreement.
The State thereafter filed both an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 and a petition for common law writ of certiorari
challenging the trial court’s assessment of $500. We denied the State’s application for an
extraordinary appeal but granted its petition for writ of certiorari. State v. Ferguson, No.
E2025-00044-CCA-WR-CO (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 1, 2025) (Order). Finding that the
trial court’s order violated the State of Tennessee’s sovereign immunity from suit, we grant
certiorari and reverse and vacate the trial court’s order.

Petitioner, Vonda Star Smith, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claim that the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Petitioner also argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) obtain a DNA expert, (2) object to a comment made by the trial court, (3) object to the State’s introduction of an undisclosed impeachment statement, and (4) call a corroborating witness. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendants, James and Kelli Hewitt, for review of the conditions of their pretrial release. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes. For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants’ motion is denied.

In 2023, a Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Demetruice Bennett, of assault,
several offenses involving the possession of a weapon and evading arrest. The trial court
sentenced the Defendant, a Range II offender, to a total effective sentence of twenty years,
to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred
when it admitted a video showing that he possessed a firearm on a day different from the
day upon which the indicted offenses occurred; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to the admissibility of the video; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to
support his convictions related to his possession of a firearm. After review, we affirm the
trial court’s judgments.

Jayshawn Edward Williams, Defendant, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder
for the shooting death of Travis Brown in Knoxville. The trial court sentenced Defendant
to a thirty-six-year sentence. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appealed,
arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the proof did
not establish his identity and because he acted in self-defense. Because we determine the
evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jaylun Malik Currie, appeals from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and aggravated criminal trespass and his effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel’s alleged multiple instances of deficient performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Coy J. Cotham, Jr., of first-degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a life sentence without parole and a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Coy J. Cotham, Jr., M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3778613, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 31, 2014). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to DNA testing of a blue towel recovered from his vehicle. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The Petitioner, Crystal Lee Martin, entered an Alford or “best interest” plea to DUI on March 17, 2025, and her sentence was immediately executed as time served. On July 17, 2025, the Petitioner filed multiple post-conviction motions, including a “post-conviction relief packet,” which was related to her DUI offense, and also to a separate offense to which she had previously pleaded guilty, been given probation, and her ensuing probation violation convictions. The post-conviction court entered an order stating that the petition was not signed under oath subject to penalty of perjury and gave the Petitioner fifteen days to file an amended petition, and it denied all her other motions. The Petitioner filed a motion stating that her petition was, in fact, properly verified and indicating her refusal to file an amended petition. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The defendant, Blake Shemar Swann, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his
probation and ordering him to serve his six-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review
of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jacque Bouvier Bennett, of aggravated rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and assault by offensive touching. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it found the victim competent to testify; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the victim’s mother to be present during the victim’s testimony; (3) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (4) the victim failed to identify the Defendant at trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors undermined the Defendant’s right to a fair trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The petitioner, Charles Lane, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by
the Sevier County Circuit Court, arguing the habeas court erred in dismissing the petition.
The petitioner asserts that his pretrial jail credits were not applied properly and that his
request for transcripts was erroneously denied. Following our review, we affirm the habeas
court’s dismissal of the petition as the petitioner has failed to show he is entitled to relief.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, Parnell Quinn Short, of theft of property
valued between $1000 and $2500, a Class E felony and fixed a fine of $1750. The trial
court imposed the fine fixed by the jury and sentenced the Defendant, as a career offender,
to serve six years to run consecutively to the Defendant’s convictions in other cases. On
appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted three of his
prior convictions for impeachment purposes; and (2) imposed the fine set by the jury
without making the statutorily required findings. After review, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment but vacate the imposition of the fine. We remand the case for a sentencing
hearing with respect to the imposition of the fine.