Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

Defendant, Atlanta Pearl Hardy, was convicted of second degree murder in 2004 and now appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Upon review of the record, this Court affirms the trial court's denial of relief under Rule 36.1.

The Defendant, Marcus Deangelo Lee, pleaded guilty in 1997 to escape from felony incarceration, and the trial court sentenced him to one year and ordered that his sentence run consecutively to a three-year sentence the Defendant received for drug-related and firearm convictions in 1995. Since that time, the Defendant has been arrested and convicted on other charges unrelated to this case. Almost seventeen years later, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 with regard to jail credits for his 1997 felony escape conviction. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Defendant appeals. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred when it summarily dismissed his motion because the trial court improperly amended his judgment to reflect 103 days of jail credit, which he argues resulted in his sentences running concurrently rather than consecutively as mandated by statute. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Montreal Lyons, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Defendant contends that his sentence is illegal because the trial court imposed the sentence for offenses that occurred in 2002 under the 2005 amendments to the sentencing act without an ex post facto waiver signed by Defendant. The State responds that the trial court properly dismissed Defendant’s motion because he failed to state a colorable claim for relief. We agree with the State. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jonathan C. Buckner, was convicted by a Houston County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony.  See T.C.A. § 39-14-103 (2014).  The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years’ confinement and ordered that his sentence be served consecutively to a sentence in an unrelated case.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by failing to provide witnesses and prospective jurors proper instructions before jury selection, (2) by admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence, (3) by denying his two motions for a mistrial, (4) by overruling defense objections during the prosecutor’s opening statement and closing argument, and (5) during sentencing.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Lucas Potter, pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery, attempted robbery, and theft of property under $500. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-401, -402, 39-14- 103. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective five-year sentence of split confinement with community corrections after 270 days of service. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court failed to properly consider his request for judicial diversion and erred in allowing the State to present rebuttal proof at the sentencing hearing. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jerry Phillips, appeals the denial of his request for post-conviction relief from his four convictions for aggravated sexual battery. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s jury selection procedures in this case, which deviated from Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 24, as recognized in State v. Frausto, 463 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2015), amounted to ineffective assistance and that appellate counsel was likewise ineffective for failing to argue for plain error review of this issue on appeal. He further submits that the jury selection process violated his rights to due process of law, to a fair and impartial jury, and to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Michael Eugene Sample, was convicted in 1982 of two counts of felony murder and was sentenced to death. Following his unsuccessful direct appeal, he began filing, over the next twenty years, a series of various types of post-conviction petitions, all of which were unsuccessful. This appeal followed his claim, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, that he is intellectually disabled and not eligible to be executed. Thus, in his view, his sentence is illegal and void; and he is entitled to a hearing on his claim. Further, he argues that he is entitled to a writ of error audita querela and a writ of error coram nobis. The coram nobis court denied relief as to each of these claims and we affirm the judgment of that court.

I concur in the majority opinion, but I write separately to express my views regarding the additional issues that arise from warrantless, suspicionless searches of probationers conducted pursuant to a condition of probation. I believe that at a minimum, reasonable suspicion is required before the State may conduct a warrantless search of a probationer who is subject to a warrantless search requirement as a condition of probation. While neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Tennessee Supreme Court have addressed whether something less than reasonable suspicion would permit searches of probationers, both courts have addressed the issue as it related to parolees. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006); State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 (Tenn. 2009).

Defendant, Marcus Gergish, was found guilty by a jury of one count of criminally negligent homicide and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery and was sentenced to serve an effective twenty-one-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by destroying evidence; (3) that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by misleading the jurors and misstating evidence; (4) that the trial court’s denial of a motion to continue, motion for expert funding, and refusal to allow the defense to call a witness on Defendant’s behalf denied Defendant a fair trial; (5) that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the issues of dying declarations and lost or destroyed evidence; (6) that the trial court failed to act as the Thirteenth Juror; and (7) that the cumulative effect of all the errors denied Defendant a fair trial. Following a careful review of the record, we find that Defendant’s motion for new trial was not timely filed. Therefore, all of Defendant’s issues except for sufficiency of the evidence are waived, and we decline to exercise our discretion to review the waived issues for plain error. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed.

Defendant, Francisco G. Parvin, was indicted by the Greene County Grand Jury for aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Count 1 and aggravated assault by the use of a deadly weapon in Count 2. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in Count 2 of the lesser-included offense of assault and sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, with 120 days to be served in jail and the remainder to be suspended on probation. The record does not contain a judgment form in Count 1, but the record indicates that only Count 2 was submitted for trial. Presumably, Count 1 was dismissed. The offenses in both counts were against the same victim. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction in Count 2. After a careful review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se Petitioner, Barry N. Waddell, appeals the denial of his second motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief.  Following our review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements governing an appeal from the denial of a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.