Appellate panel hears arguments on late-filed appeal in Dion Young case; no immediate ruling

A Knox County appellate panel heard argument on a motion to accept a late-filed appeal by Dion Young on November 1, 2025. Appellant counsel Forrest Wallace told the court he was retained after the 30-day appeal window closed and that, after discovering the omission, he filed a motion asking the court to excuse the delay and consider multiple claims on the merits.

"The judgment was entered in November, 2024," Wallace said, and he told the court he had been retained outside the 30-day window. Wallace described efforts to obtain transcripts and said the clerk declined to accept them because the case was closed. He acknowledged the record is silent about why original trial counsel did not file a motion for new trial or a timely notice of appeal but argued that waiver was warranted "in the interest of justice," listing three principal grounds: (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) alleged sentencing error in the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, and (3) a plain-error/due-process concern tied to how evidence of a prior conviction and aggravated-assault allegations were presented to the jury.

Wallace focused the sufficiency argument on the possession element. He described the body-worn-camera evidence and the vehicle/glove-box/key-fob sequence, arguing the firearm in the glove box was not immediately accessible and required "several steps" before it could be reduced from constructive to actual possession. He emphasized the stressful circumstances of the traffic stop and questioned whether the state proved Young knew the firearm was present.

A panel judge repeatedly pressed Wallace on dates and record evidence. The court noted that under governing precedent (discussed in argument as Rockwell and related rulings) the bench must look for reasons in the record that would justify allowing an untimely notice of appeal, and observed there is no affidavit or explanation from original trial counsel explaining the missed deadline.

Assistant attorney Katherine Redding urged the court to dismiss the appeal as untimely. "This court should dismiss the appeal as untimely," Redding said, citing the filing deadline and noting the notice of appeal was not lodged until February 27, a 66-day delay. The state argued the interests of justice did not support waiver, that the record lacks any reason to excuse the delay, and that the issues raised by the defendant are meritless or reviewed under deferential standards.

On the merits, Redding told the court that, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, a rational jury could conclude Young possessed the firearm: he was the driver and only occupant, the gun was in the glove box, and the video showed movements by the defendant toward the glove box. The state also defended the within-range sentence as subject only to an abuse-of-discretion review and argued that any claim tied to the weighing of enhancement and mitigation is not a proper basis for reversal.

Wallace also raised a plain-error argument concerning the trial court's handling of prior-conviction evidence and whether the court or parties should have considered a stipulation or bifurcation to limit the jury's exposure to the specifics of a prior aggravated-assault conviction. A judge queried whether established precedent (discussed as Vance, Carter, and Vyse) requires a showing that correction of an error would change the outcome — and potentially an acquittal — before plain-error relief would be appropriate.

The panel and the parties debated waiver, curative instructions, and whether the trial court had given pretrial and final instructions that would mitigate any alleged prejudice from references to prior convictions. The state emphasized waiver for failure to object at trial and argued the jury is presumed to follow the court's instructions.

No ruling on the motion to accept the late-filed appeal was announced during the hearing. The panel concluded argument, thanked counsel, and adjourned "till the November docket," without a disposition on the timeliness question recorded on the public docket.

What happened next: The court took the matter under advisement; any written order or opinion resolving whether the court will waive the timely-filing requirement or dismiss the appeal was not entered on the record during this session.