Robert H. Montgomery jr

The case involved Scott A. Stiner, who was convicted by a jury in Union County Criminal Court of one count of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor and four counts of aggravated sexual battery against children under thirteen, resulting in an effective fifty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant raised multiple issues including discrepancies between the indictment and evidence presented, failure to sever offenses, insufficient evidence on one count, lack of unanimous verdict, mistrial denial, improper admission of evidence under Rule 404(b), authentication issues, expert testimony scope, and consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding no merit in the defendant's claims regarding trial fairness, evidentiary rulings, sentencing, and other procedural matters.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves defendant Mawule Tepe, charged with stalking and aggravated stalking in Bradley County general sessions and criminal courts. Tepe filed pro se motions to recuse the presiding judges, claiming bias from their failure to rule on his other pro se filings about bail conditions, arrest legality, and related matters. The Court of Criminal Appeals summarily dismissed his petition for accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The court reasoned that no order denying recusal had been entered to enable review, and that a represented defendant is barred from filing pro se motions, rendering the petition a nullity.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a pro se defendant indicted for resisting arrest who sought an interlocutory appeal after the trial court granted his counsel's motion to withdraw due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the application for interlocutory appeal, finding it procedurally insufficient because the defendant had not first obtained permission from the trial court as required by Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the provided record was inadequate for review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Oscar Romero for the rape of a nineteen-year-old victim following a party at his home on December 26-27, 2020. Romero appealed his Class B felony conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the trial court wrongly excluded rebuttal evidence intended to impeach the victim, and that the court misapplied an enhancement factor based on the victim's vulnerability during sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the conviction and the ten-year sentence. The court determined that the evidence, including the victim's testimony about the assault while she was intoxicated, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On sentencing, even if the trial court erred in applying one enhancement factor based solely on age difference, other valid factors supported the within-range sentence under the applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the convictions of Evelyn D. Kennedy and Christopher L. Kennedy for first-degree felony murder and aggravated neglect of an elderly or vulnerable adult resulting in serious bodily injury. The defendants, who served as caregivers for Evelyn Kennedy's 72-year-old aunt, were found to have confined her to a basement room in unsanitary conditions without adequate nutrition, hydration, hygiene, or medical care, leading to her hospitalization in April 2019 and death in June 2019. On appeal, the defendants challenged the convictions on ex post facto grounds and the admission of graphic autopsy photographs, but the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments. The court determined that the ex post facto claims were without merit and that any error in admitting one inflammatory photograph was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. William P. Eblen, the defendant sought to appeal final judgments from the Knox County General Sessions Court directly to the Court of Criminal Appeals and requested permission to proceed pro se after his appointed counsel declined to file the appeal. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction because appeals from general sessions court judgments must first be taken to the circuit or criminal court within ten days under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-5-108(a)(1), rather than directly to the appellate court. It also noted that a defendant cannot proceed pro se while represented by counsel and that a separate appeal by counsel was already pending in criminal court. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to proceed pro se and dismissed the appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Wayne Morris Flood, who was serving an eight-year probation sentence for methamphetamine possession after pleading guilty and agreeing to complete a residential treatment program. After leaving the program without permission, his probation was revoked by the trial court. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the revocation, holding that the violation was technical in nature and that Tennessee law prohibits revoking probation for a single instance of a technical violation. The court noted that the warrant did not charge absconding, which would be a non-technical violation, and no such finding was made at the hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Teresa Sumpter's appeal from the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of post-conviction relief following her convictions for felony theft of property valued over $250,000 and money laundering, for which she received an effective sixty-year sentence. Sumpter alleged that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present certain witnesses, object to the chain of custody for documents found in a satchel, adequately cross-examine witnesses about inconsistencies, prepare her for trial, and appeal the length of her sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief, concluding that some claims were waived because they were not raised in the petition or at the evidentiary hearing, others lacked sufficient argument or citations on appeal, and the remaining claims did not establish deficient performance or prejudice under the applicable legal standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Glyn Dale appealed the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s summary denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2007 Knox County convictions for two counts of rape of a child and effective 25-year sentence, claiming the judgment was void due to defects such as the absence of the court clerk’s signature on the presentment and judgment forms and the lack of a specified term for the indictment. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial pursuant to Rule 20, holding that the petitioner failed to present a cognizable habeas corpus claim because the allegations concerned procedural or technical defects that did not render the judgment void on its face or demonstrate an expired sentence. The court explained that habeas relief requires a showing that the convicting court lacked jurisdiction or authority based on the face of the record, whereas the petitioner’s issues would at most make the judgment voidable and require extrinsic proof, making post-conviction proceedings the appropriate remedy instead.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Jaylun Malik Currie's appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in Tipton County Circuit Court. Currie was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and aggravated criminal trespass arising from a 2020 incident with his former girlfriend, and he received an effective eight-year sentence. He claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain evidence, not advising him to testify, not presenting a defense, and making concessions in closing arguments, and he also alleged cumulative error. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief, holding that Currie failed to prove deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice under the applicable standards, and that no multiple deficiencies existed to support a cumulative-error claim.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Darren Brown appealing the Shelby County Criminal Court's summary denial of his second petition for a writ of error coram nobis regarding his 2006 first-degree premeditated murder conviction and life sentence. Brown argued for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and relief based on allegedly withheld exculpatory witness statements from Dorrell Jones. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, reasoning that Brown failed to provide a complete appellate record including the petition and the denying order, requiring the court to presume the lower court's ruling was correct.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Jacquiz McBee's petition for recusal appeal challenging the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his motion to recuse the presiding judge in his criminal proceedings. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the petition under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B and summarily denied relief without requiring a response from the State. The court determined that the petition was untimely, having been filed more than 21 days after the trial court's January 28, 2026 order, and that the defendant failed to include required supporting documents such as the motion, the trial court's order, and related pleadings needed for de novo review. As a result, the petition was deemed insufficient, and the appeal was denied.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Michael Sneed, who pleaded guilty to two counts of selling methamphetamine over 0.5 gram as a Range II offender and received a sixteen-year sentence of confinement. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing, claiming insufficient weight was given to his prior rehabilitation completion and health conditions such as seizures. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion after considering the presentence reports, the defendant's extensive criminal history with multiple probation violations, his high drug risk assessment, and the absence of medical evidence supporting claims that confinement could not accommodate his needs. The court determined the sentence was within the statutory range and that the trial judge properly weighed all relevant sentencing factors without abuse of discretion.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Cedric Peter Hopgood, who pleaded guilty to multiple felony drug possession charges and received an agreed 33-year effective sentence; more than two years later, he filed a petition seeking to withdraw the pleas, alleging an illegal sentence increase, breach of agreements with federal authorities, and fraud by the state. The trial court treated the petition as a motion to withdraw guilty pleas under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f) and summarily denied it. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the motion was untimely because the judgments became final 30 days after entry, after which the trial court lost jurisdiction to consider withdrawal. The court applied precedents establishing that such motions must be filed before judgments become final to prevent manifest injustice and that late filings render any rulings void.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, petitioner Toby Dunn sought appellate review of a post-conviction court's order denying his motion to recuse the judge handling his post-conviction petition. The Court of Criminal Appeals summarily denied the appeal. The core reasoning was that the filing improperly invoked Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 for interlocutory review, which does not apply to recusal denials; the correct exclusive method is an accelerated appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Even treating the pleading as a Rule 10B petition, it failed to include the required statement of issues, facts, argument, or supporting documents, was filed beyond the 21-day deadline, and provided no basis for de novo review.

criminal lawprocedure

Gregory Ryan Webb, who was convicted of domestic assault and had his conviction affirmed on direct appeal, filed a motion in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee seeking appointment of counsel for further proceedings and requesting an extraordinary appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10, citing financial need and concerns about external interference with counsel. The court treated the filing as an application for an extraordinary appeal and denied relief. The decision rested on the absence of information about any pending trial court proceedings, failure to attach required orders or record excerpts under Rule 10(c), and lack of any showing that the lower court had departed from normal judicial procedures in a way requiring immediate review; additionally, the trial court had already appointed counsel for post-conviction matters, rendering the motion moot.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a defendant, Marvin M. Green, who was indicted on charges of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia, and who filed a pro se application for extraordinary appeal seeking dismissal of the indictment on due process and equal protection grounds or, alternatively, appointment of conflict-free counsel and a speedy trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee denied the application. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to show any fundamental illegality, abuse of discretion, or extraordinary departure from accepted judicial proceedings in the trial court's handling of the arraignment under Tenn. R. App. P. 10, as the arraignment followed standard procedure upon return of the indictment. The court also noted that the defendant could not proceed pro se while represented by appointed counsel.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved defendant Marion Brock Foreman, who was convicted after a bench trial of multiple counts of unlawful firearm possession by a person with a prior felony drug conviction and one count of drug paraphernalia possession. The convictions stemmed from evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his home that began after officers in a helicopter spotted suspected marijuana plants on his property while searching for an unrelated fugitive. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated his constitutional rights. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's judgments, vacated the convictions, and remanded the case, holding that the State failed to prove valid consent for the search of the home and its closed containers because the defendant was handcuffed and in custody, the officers had drawn weapons, and the search exceeded the limited purpose for which he had asked to enter the residence.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedureguns

The case involved Camry Chrishay Veazey, who was convicted by a Davidson County jury of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment after shooting the victim in the abdomen during a December 2021 parking lot altercation at a nail salon that arose from the defendant's vandalism of a car belonging to a man both women had dated. The defendant appealed her convictions and three-year probation sentence, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a firearm recovered from her car one month after the incident. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments, concluding that the proof was sufficient for the jury to reject the self-defense claim and that admission of the unrelated firearm evidence, while erroneous, constituted harmless error that did not affect the outcome.

criminal law

In this case, Bobby V. Summers appealed the trial court's dismissal of his 2025 motion to withdraw a guilty plea he entered in 2019 to facilitation of first degree murder in exchange for a sixty-year sentence. The defendant argued that his plea was invalid because counsel failed to explain the charge and that his actual innocence or ineffective assistance should allow the motion despite the delay. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that under Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 32(f) and relevant precedent, a judgment becomes final thirty days after entry, after which the trial court lacks jurisdiction to permit withdrawal of the plea. The motion here was filed more than five years late, so the trial court properly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure