Full Opinion

08/07/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 9, 2026 KELDRICK TAYLOR v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 20-00965 Paula L. Skahan, Judge ___________________________________ No. W2025-01087-CCA-R3-PC ___________________________________ Keldrick Taylor, Petitioner, appeals after the post-conviction court denied relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Petitioner’s issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is waived, we affirm the post-conviction court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, P.J., and MATTHEW WILSON, J., joined. Ernest J. Beasley, (on appeal) and C. Alex Jones (at hearing), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Keldrick Taylor. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Elizabeth Evan, Assistant Attorney General; Steven J. Mulroy, District Attorney General; and Atine Stavropoulos, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION On June 21, 2021, Petitioner pled guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery and received a sentence of thirteen and on-half years, as a Range II offender. He filed a timely pro se petition in which he claimed trial counsel was ineffective. Counsel was appointed and an amended, albeit unverified petition was filed. After a bifurcated hearing, at which Petitioner testified that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly prepare for trial or inform him about his case, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed. On appeal, the State asserts that the appeal should be dismissed due to inadequate briefing. We agree that the issue raised by Petitioner is waived and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. Issues raised by an appellant that “are not supported by argument, citation to authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived.” Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b); Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7)(A). Petitioner’s brief does not include any citations to the record. While Petitioner cites general post-conviction authority, he cites no specific authority in support of his argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare for trial or investigate his case. Additionally, the table of authorities does not comply with Rule 27(h), which requires citation of cases to be by “title, to the page of the volume where the case begins, and to the pages upon which the pertinent matter appears in at least one of the reporters cited.” Tenn. R. App. P. 27(h). Of greater concern, however, is an issue with Petitioner’s brief pointed out by the State. Specifically, the State notes that the “argument section of [Petitioner’s] brief is almost verbatim [to] the argument section of two other . . . briefs currently before the Court.”1 Even when this grave concern was drawn to Petitioner’s attention, he failed to file a reply brief to correct the raised issue or reply to the State’s accusations. Tenn. R. App. P. 27(c). We are satisfied that this Court is not acting sua sponte. Defendant was on notice of his inadequate briefing and denied the opportunity to correct. State v. Holley, __S.W.3d __, No. W2024-00748-SC-R11-CD, 2026 WL 2149085 at *1 (Tenn. July 27, 2026). The State not only began its argument highlighting the failures of Petitioner’s brief, the State specifically asked this Court to dismiss this appeal. Id. *6. 1 The State cites the briefs to Person v. State, No. W2025-01756-CCA-R3-PC, appellant’s brief filed April 2, 2026, and Bass v. State, No. W2025-01757-CCA-R3-PC, appellant’s brief also filed April 2, 2026. We have identified at least four more Shelby County post-conviction matters wherein counsel for Petitioner filed nearly identical briefs – Wilks v. State, W2025-01504-CCA-R3-PC, appellant’s brief filed March 6, 2026; Johnson v. State, No. W2025-01975-CCA-R3-PC, appellant’s brief filed June 10, 2026, Beal v. State, No. W2024-01302-CCA-R3-PC, 2025 WL 1949792 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 16, 2025), no perm. app. filed, and Jefferson v. State, W2024-01487-CCA-R3-PC, 2025WL1328795 at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 7, 2025). All briefs contain an identical table of authorities, including identical page numbers to the differing briefs and all fail to list a single citation to the differing records. All briefs also contain the identical framed issue: “The finding of the court, denying [Appellant’s] Petition for Post- Conviction Relief, was against the weight of the evidence as trial counsel's representation fell below the standards set forth in Baxter v. Rose.” The argument sections of each brief are within mere words of being mirror images of one another. -2- Furthermore, in Beal, in affirming the judgment of the post-conviction court, this Court pointed out to Petitioner’s post-conviction counsel that “[i]t is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” Beal, 2025 WL 1949792 at *3 (citing Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010)). These failures, in our minds, verge on a violation of Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 16, and subject appointed counsel to a potential finding of contempt. For the variety of reasons discussed, Petitioner’s brief is inadequate under our rules, and so we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. S/Timothy L. Easter TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE -3-