Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

The petitioner, Kenneth A. Jones, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of robbery. In this appeal, the petitioner reiterates his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, we affirm.

Father appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate his parental rights to two children on the grounds of (1) incarceration under a sentence of ten or more years, and the children were under eight at the time the sentence was entered, (2) wanton disregard for the welfare of the children, and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the children, and placing the children in Father’s care would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical and psychological welfare of the children. He further challenges the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

Defendant, Whelchel Randall Hogan, pled guilty to possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver after the denial of a motion to suppress. As part of the guilty plea, Defendant reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of his traffic stop. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss Defendant’s conviction.

The petitioner, Tracy Looney, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Sarah Brinkman, appeals from the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for her conviction of introducing contraband into a penal institution, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve 180 days’ incarceration before returning to probation. Discerning no error, we affirm.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. In my opinion, based on the proof presented at the suppression hearing and at trial, the trial court correctly determined that there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless blood draw. For the reasons that follow, I would affirm the defendant’s conviction of vehicular homicide.

Jason White, Defendant, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell within a drug-free zone and one count of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver within a drug-free zone. Co-defendant Kristina Cole and Co-defendant Montez Mullins were also convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell within a drug-free zone and one count of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver within a drug-free zone in the same trial. See State v. Kristina Cole and Montez Mullins, No. W2017-01980-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 5810011, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 5, 2018), perm. app. filed. The trial court sentenced Defendant to sixty years as a career offender with release after service of 100% of the sentence. On appeal, Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing Defendant’s trial counsel to represent Defendant despite a conflict of interest; (2) the State constructively amended the indictment by obtaining a superseding indictment; (3) the trial court erred in admitting: testimony from Andrew Brown; Co-defendant Montez Mullins’ confession; text messages that Detective Mark Gaia retrieved from Co-defendant Cole’s three cell phones; and marijuana confiscated from Mr. White’s vehicle; (4) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from Detective Gaia without instructing the jury about witness credibility; (5) the State’s introduction of Co-defendant Mullins’ confession violated Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968); (6) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to sever his case from Co-defendants Cole and Mullins; (7) the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to have found Defendant guilty; and (8) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm.

The Defendant, Daniel Dewayne Kincaid, appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probationary sentence and order of one hundred and eighty days of split confinement for his convictions for DUI. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve one hundred and eighty days of split confinement before being released on supervised probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury found the Defendant guilty of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Creed Gettys Welch, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of aggravated sexual battery of a victim less than thirteen years of age and was sentenced to serve ten years at 100%. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction and the trial court’s alleged failure to fulfill its role as the thirteenth juror. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, David Lynn Zeigler, appeals from a Maury County jury conviction of rape by “knowing or having reason to know [the victim] was mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-503(a)(3). In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in prohibiting trial counsel’s cross-examination of an expert witness about his suspension from the practice of forensic psychology for unprofessional conduct; (2) whether the trial court’s decision to limit cross-examination of the expert witness effectively interfered with trial counsel’s right to present a defense; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.