Full Opinion

11/04/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VINCENT D. JOHNSON Criminal Court for Davidson County Nos. 2023-B-902, 2024-A-143 ___________________________________ No. M2026-01725-CCA-T10B-CO ___________________________________ ORDER This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Vincent D. Johnson, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2. The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his pretrial motion to recuse. The Defendant waived his right to counsel and is proceeding in the trial court on his own, with standby counsel. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. Background In case number 2023-B-902, the Defendant is charged with thirteen counts of various drug related and unlawful possession of firearm offenses. In case number 2024- A-143, the Defendant is charged with theft of a vehicle, being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s bond; thus, he is currently in custody pending trial in these cases. It appears the cases are proceeding on the same track in the trial court. Trial was scheduled to begin September 28, 2026, but it has since been continued. Prior to continuance, on September 16, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to recuse the trial judge. The Defendant argued therein the judge could not remain impartial in this case because of her rulings regarding his pretrial custody, comments she made during pretrial hearings related to the bond matters and on his request to proceed pro se and the fact she signed a search warrant related to his co-defendant when she served as a magistrate. On September 18, 2026, the judge denied the motion to recuse. In her order, the judge disputed the merits of the Defendant’s allegations and concluded: To the contrary, the Court has made effort to protect [the Defendant’s] interests and his right to a fair trial and will continue to do so. The Court has no doubt as to an ability to preside impartially in these cases. The Court has not considered, much less prejudged, the factual issues of these cases and has no bias regarding the merits of either case. The Court does not manifest bias nor prejudice toward [the Defendant] and has not exhibited otherwise during these proceedings. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B Any party seeking disqualification, recusal, or a determination of constitutional or statutory incompetence of a judge of a court of record, or a judge acting as a court of record, shall do so by a written motion filed promptly after a party learns or reasonably should have learned of the facts establishing the basis for recusal. The motion shall be filed no later than ten days before trial, absent a showing of good cause which must be supported by an affidavit. The motion shall be supported by an affidavit under oath or a declaration under penalty of perjury on personal knowledge and by other appropriate materials. The motion shall state, with specificity, all factual and legal grounds supporting disqualification of the judge and shall affirmatively state that it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. A party who is represented by counsel is not permitted to file a pro se motion under this Rule. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 1.01 (emphasis added). If the trial judge denies the motion, the party may then file a petition for appellate review, as the Defendant has done here. The petition must be filed within twenty-one days of the trial court’s order, and the appealing party is required to promptly file a copy of the petition with the trial court clerk and serve all other parties. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 2.02. Rule 10B, Section 2.03, further requires the petition to include a statement of the issues presented for review, a statement of the relevant facts, a supporting argument requesting specific relief, as well as copies of the motion and all supporting documents filed in the trial court, the trial court’s order or opinion, and any other parts of the record necessary for determination of the appeal. If this Court determines, based on the petition and supporting documents, that an answer from any other party is unnecessary, the Court may act summarily on the appeal. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 2.05. The Court will act summarily on the petition at hand. Discussion 2 Initially, this Court observes the Defendant did not serve his petition on the trial court clerk. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, Sec. 2.02. Aside from that noncompliance, and as explained below, the motion to recuse he filed in the trial court did not comply with all of the requirements of Rule 10B, section 1.01. Any motion filed in the trial court must strictly comply with those requirements, and a party’s failure to do so authorizes a trial court to deny the motion. See, e.g., StoneyBrooke Investors, LLC v. McCurry, No. E2024-00253- COA-T10B-CV, 2024 WL 837942 at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2024), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2024); State v. Rogers, No. E2013-00909-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 1423241 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 12, 2014). Upon a de novo review, this Court concludes the trial court should have summarily denied the Defendant’s motion. The Defendant did not “affirmatively state [anywhere in his motion, filed exactly ten days before the scheduled trial date,] that it [was] not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, sec 1.01. Nor did he support his motion with “an affidavit under oath or a declaration under penalty of perjury on personal knowledge and by other appropriate materials.” Id. Accordingly, the trial judge was authorized to summarily deny the motion to recuse. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s petition for review is hereby denied. Because the Defendant was declared indigent, costs are taxed to the State. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the trial judge and the trial court clerk. Easter, J., Wedemeyer, P.J., Ayers, J. 3