APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This matter concerns criminal contempt and an order of protection. Jolene Renee (Scholl) Bauer (“Wife”) and Michael Ray Scholl (“Husband”) divorced in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). Husband was ordered not to go around Wife’s work or residence. Wife later filed a motion for criminal contempt against Husband alleging that he went around her residence, the parties’ former marital residence, in violation of the court’s order. She also sought an order of protection, citing Husband’s history of violence toward her. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Wife an order of protection. The Trial Court found Husband guilty on two counts of criminal contempt for texting Wife’s neighbor to ask what was happening with Wife and the house. Husband appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s granting Wife an order of protection. However, we find that Husband did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him and that the evidence is insufficient to support the criminal contempt findings by the Trial Court of Husband’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse the findings of criminal contempt against Husband. We therefore affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Defendant, Terrence Sanders, appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original sentence in confinement, arguing that there was insufficient proof that his new arrest for domestic assault constituted a non-technical violation of his probation and that the trial court erred by failing to make appropriate findings in support of its decisions. We agree that the trial court failed to make adequate findings in support of its decisions to revoke the Defendant’s probation and order execution of the original judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the trial court to make additional findings, in accordance with State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022), regarding whether the State proved a non-technical violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence and, if so, the appropriate consequence to be imposed.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s denial of her motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm.

This appeal concerns a detainer action. Mekey Adem, Said Moammed, and Adem Homes, LLC (“Adem”) (“Landlords,” collectively) sought to evict Alexandria Hart (“Tenant”) for non-payment of rent. The General Sessions Court for Shelby County (“the General Sessions Court”) ruled against Tenant, who then appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”). Tenant attempted to post her birth certificate as the possessory bond to allow her to remain on the premises while her appeal was pending. The Circuit Court rejected this and granted Adem a writ of possession. Ultimately, Tenant was ordered to pay rent she owed plus reasonable attorney’s fees. Tenant appeals. We affirm. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Adem is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, the amount of which the Circuit Court is to determine on remand.

A Fayette County jury convicted the Petitioner, Frederick Demetrius Deberry, of aggravated rape, and the trial court imposed a twenty-year sentence to be served consecutively to a federal sentence. The Petitioner thereafter filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his conviction and sentence were void for the following reasons: (1) the trial court improperly overruled his objections to the State’s peremptory strikes of Black jurors; (2) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (3) trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (5) the court unlawfully enhanced his sentence and ordered it to run consecutively to his federal sentence; and (6) the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his earlier petition without a hearing. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the alleged claims, even if true, would render the challenged judgment voidable rather than void. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court

Defendant, Deon Lamonte Young, was convicted of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony, driving on a revoked or suspended license, driving with an open container, and failing to stop at a stop sign. The State filed notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment based on six of Defendant’s prior felony convictions. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-five year sentence with eighty-five percent release eligibility as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm; that his sentence was excessive; and that the trial court committed plain error by “abrogat[ing] its duty to ensure a fair trial when it did not address whether [Defendant] intended to stipulate to his felony status, and failed to provide adequate instructions to the jury.” However, because the appeal is untimely and the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing of the notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

Defendant, Charles Blankenship, was convicted by a Monroe County jury of possession of 300 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony. He received an effective sentence of fifty-two years’ incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that 1) he was denied his right to an impartial jury; 2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement; 3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine; 4) the trial court erred in revoking his bond during the trial; and 5) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and oral argument of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Johnny Robert Bowen, Jr., appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. The Defendant contends the admission of the drug screening report violated his confrontation rights because there was an insufficient showing of good cause or reliability. He additionally argues the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his probation by failing to consider any other alternative to incarceration. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2024, the Defendant, Kevin McDougle, filed his eighth motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume custody of the children. Because the record shows that Father’s failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on that ground. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on the remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

The Defendant, Gary Douglas Craigo, Jr., appeals his Sumner County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated rape and extortion, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-nine years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for each of his convictions. Discerning no error, 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.

In this divorce action, a husband challenges the trial court’s finding that the parties’ jointly owned real property transmuted into marital property during a nine-year marriage. The husband also asserts that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt of the final decree before the decree became a final order. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court as to the finding that the parties’ home became marital property during the marriage. We reverse, however, the finding of contempt against the husband.

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.

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.

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.