The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee has dismissed the appeal of Gena Kilgore, who was convicted of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $2,500. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider her appeal because she was granted judicial diversion, meaning her conviction is not yet final. This decision impacts Kilgore’s ability to challenge her conviction in court.
The case stems from a jury trial in which Kilgore was acquitted of TennCare fraud but found guilty of theft. The Shelby County jury's verdict led to a two-year term of judicial diversion, requiring Kilgore to pay $2,500 in restitution. The ruling is significant as it outlines the limitations on appeals in criminal cases, particularly regarding judicial diversion.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the State of Tennessee, represented by District Attorney General Steven J. Mulroy and his team, and the defendant, Gena Kilgore, who was defended by Jerri Green, the District Public Defender, along with Tony N. Brayton and Glover Wright. Kilgore faced charges stemming from offenses that occurred between February 2017 and April 2022.
Initially, a Shelby County grand jury indicted Kilgore on two counts: TennCare fraud and theft of property valued at $60,000 or more. However, during her trial in June 2025, she was acquitted of the fraud charge but convicted of theft. Following her conviction, Kilgore sought a judicial diversion, which the trial court granted, allowing her to avoid a formal conviction if she complied with the terms of her diversion.
The Ruling
The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Kilgore's appeal due to the nature of her judicial diversion. Judge Steven W. Sword, writing for the court, stated, "A defendant in a criminal case has no appeal as of right unless it is enumerated in Rule 3(b)." This ruling emphasizes that appeals in criminal cases are limited and that judicial diversion does not constitute a final judgment.
The court explained that judicial diversion is a probationary measure that allows defendants to avoid a conviction if they successfully complete the terms set by the court. As Kilgore had not violated her diversion terms, no judgment of conviction had been entered, and therefore, her appeal could not proceed.
Impact
This ruling clarifies the legal landscape regarding judicial diversion in Tennessee. It highlights that defendants like Kilgore, who are granted judicial diversion, do not have the right to appeal their convictions until they have violated the terms of that diversion. This decision could influence future cases where defendants seek similar diversionary measures, as it sets a precedent for how appeals are handled in such situations.
For Kilgore, the dismissal means she cannot contest her conviction or the trial court's decisions until her probationary period concludes. If she successfully completes the two years without incident, the charges against her will be dismissed, and she will not have a conviction on her record.
What's Next
Kilgore's case cannot be appealed further at this time. However, if she violates the terms of her judicial diversion, the trial court could revoke her diversion and enter a judgment of conviction, at which point she would have the right to appeal. There are currently no related cases pending that would affect this ruling.