A man convicted during a trial in Rutherford County was denied an appeal by the courts.

Adam Janes appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. He argued that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, entered his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily, faced prejudice from the assistant district attorney, was not given a chance at rehabilitation, received a harsher-than-necessary sentence, and that the State failed to file a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment. After review, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

On July 5, 2017, Adam Janes pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a six-year sentence, suspended to supervised probation. A couple of years later, he again found himself on the wrong side of the law, leading to another court case. Attempted aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault charges followed from an incident that occurred on Christmas Eve of 2019.

The Christmas episode led to Janes pleading guilty to both charges, agreeing to consecutive six-year sentences for each count, running consecutively to his previous case. In the following year, Janes filed a motion to modify his sentence, clarifying he was not seeking post-conviction relief but wanted to address the consecutive nature of his sentences. A hearing in September 2022 confirmed his intent, and the court allowed him to proceed with a motion for a sentence reduction.

In October of that same year, Janes filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, arguing that the State failed to file a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment and that offenses should have been joined. He also suggested that he was a candidate for alternative sentencing and had faced hostility and prejudice from the assistant district attorney, resulting in ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, the judge who oversaw the appeal didn't agree with Janes' assertions and denied his motion without a hearing, noting Janes had waived his ineffective assistance claims by abandoning his petition and failed to present post-sentencing developments justifying a sentence reduction.

After his appeal with the Court of Criminal Appeals hit a dead end, Janes filed an application to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court. However, that too went nowhere, and the applied appeal was answered with a denial on June 20, 2024. Janes' recent attempts for freedom appear to have ended, with his future remaining on lockdown for the foreseeable future. The defendant's sentence will end just 14 days before his 64th birthday. Currently, Janes is 50-years-of-age.