APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his child, the Cannon County Chancery Court (“trial court”) determined that clear and convincing evidence supported termination as to five statutory grounds: substantial non-compliance with a permanency plan, persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal from the parents’ custody, severe child abuse, incarceration of a parent for more than ten years when the child is under eight years of age, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court further determined that termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The father has appealed. Upon review, we vacate the trial court’s determination concerning the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan. In all other respects, we affirm.

Petitioner, Kejuan King, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, claiming the post-conviction court erred in concluding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel related to his conviction for second degree murder and his resulting twenty-five-year sentence. Petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate Petitioner’s self-defense claim, failed to effectively present a self-defense theory at trial, and failed to advocate against certain jury instructions. Petitioner further argues that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s failures amounts to a Sixth Amendment violation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Stanton, of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and domestic assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal upon conclusion of the State’s case. He also asserts that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping cannot stand because the victim’s confinement was merely incidental to the accompanying assault under State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The State appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment against the defendant, Destiny Sharina Williams, charging her with assault and abuse of a vulnerable adult. The State argues that dismissal was in error because the trial court based its decision on the State’s failure to object to a delayed dismissal of warrants against the defendant in city court. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the indictment, reinstate the charges against the defendant, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In 2010, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Andrew Hayes, of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment. After unsuccessfully pursuing a variety of post-conviction remedies in state and federal court, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, wherein he included nine pieces of “new” evidence and argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. He then filed an amended petition for writ of error coram nobis, wherein he included a tenth piece of “new” evidence as well as some allegedly exculpatory evidence and argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled because this newly discovered evidence met the standard in Clardy v. State, 691 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. 2024). The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the coram nobis petition, holding that it was untimely because the Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis was in error. After review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The petitioner, Tarvis Weatherly, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee/Father’s post-divorce petitions to modify the permanent parenting plan and for contempt. The trial court changed the children’s primary residential parent from Mother to Father. Although the trial court made a change in custody, it applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(C), which addresses modification of a residential schedule. Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(B), which addresses modifications of custody, is the applicable statute. The trial court also charged Mother with one child’s tuition. In doing so, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of the Child Support Guidelines. As such, we vacate the order: (1) modifying the permanent parenting plan; (2) modifying the Child Support Worksheet, and (3) charging Mother with the child’s private school tuition. The trial court also charged Mother with retroactive child support, found her guilty of three counts of civil contempt for alleged violations of the permanent parenting plan, and ordered her to pay Father’s attorney’s fees as punishment for the contempt. Because the record does not support the trial court’s findings of contempt, we reverse the contempt holdings and the award of attorney’s fees to Father. Because there is no basis for an award of retroactive child support, we also reverse that holding.

The trial court dismissed the appellant’s appeal from general sessions court on the basis that his notice of appeal was untimely. We affirm.

Arthur Davis Hicks, Jr., (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for reckless aggravated assault resulting in death and felon in possession of a weapon, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from the State’s expert forensic scientist regarding gunshot residue analysis performed by her co-worker; (3) the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the victim’s prior history of carrying a weapon and his “violent tendencies”; and (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Quincy Collins, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence in the Petitioner’s direct appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellants purchased a home without first personally viewing the property. Following the sale, Appellants discovered defects that they claim should have been disclosed to them prior to the sale. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the sellers of the house and the licensed home inspector. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this case involving the sale of a life insurance policy, the trial court conducted a hearing on the same day regarding the four defendants’ various motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.  The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Concerning three defendants, including the appellant, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability upon finding that those defendants had failed to respond to the summary judgment motion.  Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court found that the defendants had breached an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the life insurance policy directly to the plaintiffs, selling it to a separate trust instead, and that the defendants had done so through a “scheme to defraud” the plaintiffs.  Upon the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the trial court also found that the defendants had violated the Tennessee Viatical Settlement Act of 2009, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-50-101, et seq.  Finding the defendants to be jointly and severally liable, the trial court awarded to the plaintiffs a judgment in the amount of $418,450.87 plus attorney’s fees in the amount of $252,867.19.  One of the defendants has appealed.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment with the correction of one mathematical error.  Pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement, we grant the plaintiffs’ request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.  We remand this case to the trial court for enforcement of the modified judgment and for a determination of the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.  

The Appellant, Kortney Dalon Ball, is appealing his conviction and the sentence he
received for one count of misdemeanor domestic assault. Although he was represented by
appointed counsel at the time notice of appeal was filed, he has since been permitted
permission to proceed on his own in this appeal. The record has not yet been filed.

The Appellant, Kortney Dalon Ball, is appealing his conviction and the sentence he
received for one count of domestic assault. See Docket No. M2025-01458-CCA-R3-CD.
Although he was represented by appointed counsel at the time notice of appeal was filed
in Docket No. M2025-01458-CCA-R3-CD, he has since been permitted permission to
proceed on his own in that appeal. The record has not yet been filed therein.

The petitioner, Timothy Aaron Baxter, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his pro se motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

I concur in the majority’s conclusions that the trial court did not err in denying the
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and in classifying him as a career offender. I write
separately to address my departure from the majority’s analysis on the standard of review
to be employed for the sentencing range determination issue.

Defendant, Rebecca M. Davis, appeals her convictions for one count of aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, one count of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, and two counts of aggravated child endangerment of child eight years of age or less. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant received an effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying her motion for judgments of acquittal for aggravated child endangerment and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less; (2) the trial court erred by not merging her convictions for aggravated child endangerment with her respective convictions for aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less; and (3) the trial court violated her due process rights by allowing the State to comment on and elicit testimony regarding her pre-arrest, post-Miranda silence. After review, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal for her aggravated child neglect conviction but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jordan Harp, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. Petitioner was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. Pursuant to a March 2022 negotiated plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of second degree murder and to especially aggravated kidnapping and received an effective sentence of forty years.1 Petitioner timely sought post-conviction relief, alleging several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After only hearing from Petitioner’s trial counsel, the post-conviction court stated, “I don’t need to hear anything from [Petitioner],” and denied Petitioner the opportunity to testify and present witnesses. The post-conviction court then denied relief. Because we conclude that Petitioner was not afforded a full and fair hearing on his post-conviction petition, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for a new hearing on his post-conviction petition.

The Defendant, Dallas Wayne Tomes, Jr., was convicted in the Criminal Court of Bradley
County of five counts of burglary of a building other than a habitation, two counts of theft
of property valued at more than $1000 but less than $2500, and one count of theft of
property valued at $1000 or less. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss his charges pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers (“IAD”) and its classification of him as a career offender, arguing that the trial
court failed to conduct a foreign judgments test prior to sentencing. Discerning no error,
we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The pro se Petitioner, Tony S. Walker, appeals the summary denial of his petition seeking various forms of relief from his first degree felony murder conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant has filed an application for interlocutory appeal, see Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 9, seeking review of the October 22, 2025 order permitting appointed counsel to withdraw from representation. Because the application is procedurally insufficient for this court’s review, an answer from the State is not necessary and the application is respectfully DENIED.

The Defendant, Christian Deshawn Hyde, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve the original three-year sentence for his aggravated assault conviction in confinement. The Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement and in failing to consider any other alternative to incarceration. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.