Appellate Court Opinions

State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Jones

Claire.Gordon@tncourts.gov — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 19:13:44 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Jones

Case Number

W2025-00735-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Camille R. McMullen

Originating Judge

Judge Chris Craft

Date Filed

Tue, 04/21/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Michael Alan Gordon v. Heather Elizabeth Gordon

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:51:36 +0000

Michael Alan Gordon v. Heather Elizabeth Gordon

Case Number

M2024-00917-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Jeffrey Usman

Originating Judge

Judge Phillip R. Robinson

Date Filed

Tue, 04/21/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood (Dissenting)

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:08:18 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood (Dissenting)

Case Number

M2025-01299-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Originating Judge

Judge Michael E. Spitzer

Date Filed

Tue, 04/21/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

I write separately because I reach a different conclusion than the majority as to the appropriate response to the trial court’s deficiency. I agree that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings on the record regarding the grounds on which it found that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. However, I disagree that a de novo review of the record supports a conclusion that the Defendant committed a technical violation rather than absconding. I will endeavor to briefly explain my reasoning.

State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:06:53 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Wayne Morris Flood

Case Number

M2025-01299-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.

Originating Judge

Judge Michael E. Spitzer

Date Filed

Tue, 04/21/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Defendant, Wayne Morris Flood, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s probation revocation for his eight-year sentence for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 gram or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for the trial court to reinstate the Defendant to probation.

Remmia Radhakrishnan Sukapurath v. Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan

britney.roberson@tncourts.gov — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 17:13:27 +0000

Remmia Radhakrishnan Sukapurath v. Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan

Case Number

W2026-00450-CCA-T10B-CV

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford

Originating Judge

Senior Judge W. Mark Ward

Date Filed

Tue, 04/21/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in Appellant’s petition, the appeal is dismissed.

State of Tennessee v. Amir Hassan Spears

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:19:31 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Amir Hassan Spears

Case Number

E2024-01889-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Kyle A. Hixson

Originating Judge

Judge G. Scott Green

Date Filed

Tue, 04/21/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Defendant, Amir Hassan Spears, appeals from his convictions for first degree felony
murder, criminally negligent homicide, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated
assault. On appeal, he presents three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was
insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions for failure to establish identity; (2)
whether the State committed a Brady violation when it failed to disclose, prior to the close
of the State’s proof, the circumstances surrounding a victim’s identification of the
Defendant; and (3) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (i) failing to
take appropriate action when this issue came to light at trial, and (ii) failing to adequately
challenge testimony that the Defendant had concealed a long rifle inside his pants. After
review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gardner Ford

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:07:12 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gardner Ford

Case Number

M2025-00301-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Camille R. McMullen

Originating Judge

Judge Barry R. Tidwell

Date Filed

Mon, 04/20/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Jack Pirtle, in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Mark A. Pirtle, deceased v. John R. Howerton et al.

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 14:33:34 +0000

Jack Pirtle, in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Mark A. Pirtle, deceased v. John R. Howerton et al.

Case Number

M2025-00882-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

Originating Judge

Judge Darrell Scarlett

Date Filed

Mon, 04/20/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The plaintiff, in his capacity as the executor of the decedent’s estate, commenced this action for breach of a stock purchase agreement against the decedent’s former business partner and the business that they owned together. The agreement comprised two documents: one requiring an initial lump-sum payment of $1 million, and one requiring payment of “$8,000.00 per month for 96 months and two new automobiles with lease payments or purchase payments not to exceed $1,500.00 per month for 96 months.” The decedent also signed a handwritten note in which he agreed to forgive “all debts” if the former business partner honored “all agreements for 1 (one) year after [the decedent’s] death.” The plaintiff later moved for summary judgment based on evidence that the defendants made only 17 monthly cash payments and only 114 of the vehicle payments. In response, the defendants asserted that they made a lump sum payment of $40,000 “in full satisfaction of the debt” before the decedent’s death. The defendants also argued that the debt was forgiven pursuant to the handwritten note. Regardless, the defendants maintained that there was no evidence of missed payments. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding it undisputed that the defendants made only 17 payments. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of his attorney’s fees and costs under a “Hold Harmless and Indemnity” clause in the purchase agreement. But the court found a dispute of material fact on whether the defendants breached their obligation to make all car payments. At trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict due to the plaintiff’s alleged failure to prove damages. The trial court granted the motion because there was no evidence that the defendants missed any car payments. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment in all respects except for the award of attorney’s fees, which was based on an incorrect interpretation of the contract.

Darrin Numbers et al. v. Robert Snyder et al.

karla.drumm@tncourts.gov — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:02:49 +0000

Darrin Numbers et al. v. Robert Snyder et al.

Case Number

M2025-00407-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Andy D. Bennett

Originating Judge

Judge Adrienne Gilliam Fry

Date Filed

Mon, 04/20/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The plaintiffs in this case are two individuals who transferred a substantial amount of money to a business. After the business failed to repay the plaintiffs, they filed a lawsuit against the business and its owner, alleging various wrongdoings and seeking to pierce the corporate veil of the business. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs had proven all of their claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages against both the business and its owner. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court failed to apply the proper test for piercing the corporate veil and failed to provide sufficient clarity in its damages award. We, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

Acute Care Holdings, LLC v. Houston County, Tennessee

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:04:33 +0000

Acute Care Holdings, LLC v. Houston County, Tennessee

Case Number

M2024-01734-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

Originating Judge

Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies

Date Filed

Mon, 04/20/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This appeal follows our remand in Acute Care Holdings, LLC v. Houston Cnty., No. M2018-01534-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2337434 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2019) (hereinafter “Acute Care I”). The dispute involves the alleged breach by Houston County of a Letter of Intent pertaining to the purchase of a hospital in Erin, Tennessee. On remand, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Acute Care Holdings, LLC (“Acute Care”), by granting its motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that Houston County breached the Letter of Intent. Thereafter, the trial court entered an Agreed Final Judgment awarding Acute Care a judgment of $1,218,062.63 and prejudgment interest of $730,036.65. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm.

In Re Kansas B. et al.

karla.drumm@tncourts.gov — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:49:08 +0000

In Re Kansas B. et al.

Case Number

M2025-00553-COA-R3-JV

Authoring Judge

Judge Andy D. Bennett

Originating Judge

Judge Deana C. Hood

Date Filed

Mon, 04/20/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The appellant is a physician assistant accused by the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) of sexually abusing a stepchild. After one appeal of the dependency and neglect case, the appellant and DCS entered into an agreed order to resolve the matter. According to the appellant, he did not stipulate in the agreed order that he engaged in the alleged misconduct. In a related criminal case, the appellant was indicted by a grand jury and ultimately entered a no contest plea. He did not admit guilt, no conviction was entered, and all charges will be dismissed and expunged if he completes his probation. The Tennessee Department of Health (“DOH” or “the Department”) informed the appellant that it had opened a case against him before the Board of Physician Assistants regarding his fitness to practice “due to the allegations in the [dependency and neglect] matter.” The Department sought certain records from the juvenile court case, and the appellant opposed it. The trial court granted the Department’s motion, and the appellant appealed. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Corey Ellis

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 17:05:02 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Corey Ellis

Case Number

W2025-01178-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Camille R. McMullen

Originating Judge

Judge Carlyn L. Addison

Date Filed

Mon, 04/20/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Joseph McDowell

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 14:59:52 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Joseph McDowell

Case Number

E2024-01932-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge J. Ross Dyer

Originating Judge

Judge Barry A. Steelman

Date Filed

Fri, 04/17/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Joshua F. Linebarger

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:02:51 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Joshua F. Linebarger

Case Number

E2025-00170-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Timothy L. Easter

Originating Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Date Filed

Fri, 04/17/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Denisha Simmons

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:06:17 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Denisha Simmons

Case Number

E2025-00487-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge J. Ross Dyer

Originating Judge

Judge Andrew M. Freiberg

Date Filed

Fri, 04/17/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Donald Batiste, et al. v. The Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment, et al.

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:23:39 +0000

Donald Batiste, et al. v. The Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment, et al.

Case Number

W2025-00836-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Andy D. Bennett

Originating Judge

Chancellor James R. Newsom

Date Filed

Fri, 04/17/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The president of a homeowner’s association filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by a local zoning board. The chancery court dismissed the petition, finding that the petition was insufficiently verified. After review, we affirm.

Laura Kisana v. Isaac Caldiero

Francesca.Kraft@tncourts.gov — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:55:14 +0000

Laura Kisana v. Isaac Caldiero

Case Number

E2025-01350-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Per Curiam

Originating Judge

Judge Kyle E. Hedrick

Date Filed

Fri, 04/17/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The appellant, Isaac Caldiero (“Appellant”), filed a notice of appeal with this Court in September 2025, which states that Appellant is appealing the August 8, 2025 order of the Hamilton County Circuit Court (“the Trial Court”). Upon receiving the appellate record in this appeal, this Court reviewed the record on appeal to determine if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(b).

State of Tennessee v. Jansen L. Smith

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 19:40:18 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Jansen L. Smith

Case Number

M2025-00357-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Camille R. McMullen

Originating Judge

Judge Bradley Sherman

Date Filed

Fri, 04/17/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

SIGNAL PUMP, LLC D/B/A SIGNAL POWER v. ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.

Barbara.Doud@tncourts.gov — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:57:40 +0000

SIGNAL PUMP, LLC D/B/A SIGNAL POWER v. ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.

Case Number

E2024-01376-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge D. Kelly Thomas

Originating Judge

Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton

Date Filed

Fri, 04/17/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This appeal concerns an unsuccessful business relationship between two companies. Signal Pump, LLC (“Signal”), a company that builds LED light towers, contracted with Arrow Electronics, Inc. (“Arrow”), a major supplier of electronics components, for Arrow to become Signal’s exclusive supplier. The relationship broke down as Arrow failed to timely supply Signal with parts and Signal failed to pay Arrow. Signal sued Arrow in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraud. New York substantive law governed this lawsuit as provided for by the parties’ agreement. Arrow filed a counterclaim against Signal for breach of contract based on Signal’s alleged failure to fully compensate Arrow for its products and services. According to Signal, Arrow’s failure to timely supply parts per the agreement cost Signal massive losses in profits it otherwise would have earned. Arrow, in turn, has asserted throughout that Signal continually changed its requests for parts. After a bench trial, the Trial Court found that both parties breached the agreement. The Trial Court awarded Arrow damages for Signal’s failure to pay. However, the Trial Court declined to award Signal any damages for lost profits, citing a liability limitation clause in the parties’ agreement. Signal appeals. We hold that the liability limitation clause is an exculpatory clause. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment in that respect. Otherwise, we affirm.

Teresa Sumpter v. State of Tennessee

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 13:14:16 +0000

Teresa Sumpter v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

W2025-00539-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.

Originating Judge

Judge Carlyn L. Addison

Date Filed

Thu, 04/16/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Carole Sterbenz

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 15:31:27 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Carole Sterbenz

Case Number

M2025-00912-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.

Originating Judge

Judge William A. Lockhart

Date Filed

Thu, 04/16/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee

britney.roberson@tncourts.gov — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 16:08:36 +0000

Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

W2026-00226-CCA-R3-PD

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge Carlyn L. Addison

Date Filed

Thu, 04/16/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wayne Craddock

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:12:29 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wayne Craddock

Case Number

M2024-01886-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Matthew J. Wilson

Originating Judge

Judge Brody Kane

Date Filed

Thu, 04/16/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Stanley H. Trezevant, et al. v. Collierville Auto Center, Inc.

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:58:12 +0000

Stanley H. Trezevant, et al. v. Collierville Auto Center, Inc.

Case Number

W2024-01907-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford

Originating Judge

Judge Cedrick D. Wooten

Date Filed

Thu, 04/16/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

At the conclusion of proof in a bench trial in a breach of lease action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the basis that both plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the individual plaintiff’s lack of standing rendered his claim moot but vacate the trial court’s decision regarding the plaintiff company.

Glyn Dale v. Guy Bosch, Warden

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 18:17:12 +0000

Glyn Dale v. Guy Bosch, Warden

Case Number

M2025-01454-CCA-R3-HC

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.

Originating Judge

Judge Michael Collins

Date Filed

Thu, 04/16/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Monica D. Sorensen v. Jayson R. Sorensen

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:25:52 +0000

Monica D. Sorensen v. Jayson R. Sorensen

Case Number

M2024-01651-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford

Originating Judge

Judge Kathryn Wall Olita

Date Filed

Wed, 04/15/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The trial court denied Husband’s timely motion to alter or amend a divorce decree involving child custody, child support, and the distribution of military retirement benefits. Several days later, the trial court entered a Military Retired Pay Division Order. Husband’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the former order, but within thirty days of the latter order. Because we determine that the time for filing an appeal from the order denying Husband’s motion was not affected by the entry of the Military Retired Pay Division Order, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

State of Tennessee v. Martinez Obrien Carter

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:16:38 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Martinez Obrien Carter

Case Number

M2024-01817-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.

Originating Judge

Judge Russell Parkes

Date Filed

Wed, 04/15/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Demetruice Bennett

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:01:19 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Demetruice Bennett

Case Number

E2025-00599-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Jayshawn Edward Williams

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:04:55 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Jayshawn Edward Williams

Case Number

E2025-00542-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Timothy L. Easter

Originating Judge

Judge G. Scott Green

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Tyrome Cameron Ferguson

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:07:33 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Tyrome Cameron Ferguson

Case Number

E2025-00044-CCA-WR-CO

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Originating Judge

Judge Sandra Donaghy

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Vonda Star Smith v. State of Tennessee

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:11:50 +0000

Vonda Star Smith v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

E2025-00640-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge Jill Bartee Ayers

Originating Judge

Judge John F. Dugger, Jr.

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 18:48:57 +0000

Scott Keith Lannom v. Renee Alyce Lannom

Case Number

M2024-01952-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II

Originating Judge

Judge A. Ensley Hagan, Jr.

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

In this post-divorce action, the trial court conducted a two-day hearing regarding the mother’s petition to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the father moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The trial court granted the motion, determining that modification of the parenting plan was not warranted because the mother had not met her burden to prove that there had been a material change of circumstance affecting the minor child’s well-being. The trial court accordingly dismissed the mother’s petition with prejudice and awarded the father his reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We further determine that Father is entitled to his reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.