APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Ashley Bianca Ruth Kroese, appeals the denial of her motion to correct clerical errors in her judgments. On appeal, she claims the trial court erred by summarily denying her motion and failing to enter corrected judgments to include jail credit for the time she was on home confinement pending trial. Because the record is inadequate for meaningful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pro se Petitioner, Shavone D. Page, appeals the summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. After review, we agree with the trial court that Petitioner has not raised a colorable claim under Rule 36.1, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Benton County jury convicted the Defendant, Jayson Keith Johnson, of reckless homicide and introduction of contraband into a penal institution. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant was a Range III, persistent offender. It also found that consecutive sentences were appropriate and sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. He also asserts that the State did not provide adequate pretrial notice that he would be subject to Range III sentencing. Upon our review, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. However, we respectfully remand the case for the trial court to resentence the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender.

Defendant, Daniel Joe Otten II, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order to serve the remainder of his five-year sentence in confinement.  Defendant argues that he was denied the right to confront witnesses at the violation hearing and that the trial court improperly based its finding on hearsay evidence without a showing of reliability; that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Defendant violated the conditions of his release and the trial court applied an incorrect standard by failing to distinguish between failure to report and absconsion; and that the trial court erred by ordering full revocation.  After review, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony without a finding of good cause or reliability.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. 

In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, we review the trial court’s order denying the motion of Defendant, Johntavius Griggs, for release from custody after he was found to be incompetent to stand trial for first degree murder due to his intellectual disability. The trial court found that the conclusion of psychiatrists designated by the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (“DIDD”)1 that Defendant was ineligible for involuntary commitment was based on their misinterpretation of the statutory provisions governing the involuntary commitment of defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial due to intellectual disability. The trial court ordered additional evaluations by DIDD-designated physicians or psychologists to determine Defendant’s eligibility for involuntary commitment. Upon review, we conclude that the DIDD-designated psychiatrists misinterpreted the applicable statutory provisions in determining that Defendant did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary commitment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying Defendant’s motion for release from custody, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Pro se Petitioner, James Allen Gooch, Jr., appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his third motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence is illegal because the State failed to procure a valid arrest warrant. Upon our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has waived this claim for failure to raise it in his trial court motion and that, regardless, this court has already considered and rejected the Petitioner’s argument in a previous appeal. See State v. Gooch, No. M2017-01885-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 3414293 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2018), no perm. app. filed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Sean Austin Miller, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and received a sentence of ten years in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. We affirm.

The Johnson County Grand Jury charged the Defendant, Leigh Katherine Littleton, and
two codefendants by presentment with first degree felony murder, especially aggravated
kidnapping, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated kidnapping, extortion, conspiracy
to commit extortion, and aggravated assault. Following trial, a jury convicted the
Defendant of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, conspiracy to
commit especially aggravated kidnapping, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion,
and the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1)
the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying
the motion to suppress her first statement; (3) the trial court erred in allowing her character
to be defamed; (4) the trial court improperly excluded a pre-trial plea offer; and (5) the trial
court imposed an unconstitutional condition on her right to present a defense by not
allowing her to present proof of her codefendants’ criminal histories. After review, we
affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Glenn Larry Brown, Jr., appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession with
the intent to sell or deliver .5 gram or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school,
possession with the intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance analogue, possession of
marijuana, unlawful possession of a firearm having been convicted of a felony, and two
counts of unlawful employment of a firearm. The Petitioner alleges that the trial court
erred by depriving him of his right to testify at the trial and that the post-conviction court
erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Robert Oliver, was convicted by a Washington County jury of aggravated rape and aggravated assault, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years' incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and (3) the trial court erred by ordering the Defendant to pay $60,000 in fines.  Following our review, we concluded that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings regarding its imposition of fines.  Therefore, we reverse the trial court's sentencing determination regarding the fines and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Tarence Nelson, was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced by the trial court to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. In 2023, Petitioner filed his third petition for writ of error coram nobis (“the third petition”) claiming that a Sig Sauer P229 handgun (“the Sig Sauer”) that he hid in a computer at his home following the 2009 murders was newly discovered evidence. The Sig Sauer was found after Petitioner revealed its location and the coram nobis court by order entered on July 20, 2021, appointed counsel to represent Petitioner on the fingerprint analysis petition filed in conjunction with Petitioner’s second petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because Petitioner knew the location of the Sig Sauer at the time of his trial and because Petitioner was solely at fault in failing to present the Sig Sauer as evidence “at the proper time,” error coram nobis relief is not available. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26- 105(b). We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in summarily dismissing the petition.

The Defendant, Jamar Laquinn Frazier, appeals from his conviction for second degree murder following a jury trial. In this appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court (1) denied him counsel of his choosing by denying his request to continue the trial date; (2) erred by allowing certain testimony at trial in violation of the law of the case doctrine and by allowing improper opinion, character, and hearsay testimony; and (3) erred by imposing the maximum twenty-five-year sentence. Additionally, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial (4) due to the denial of funding for an investigator during the motion for new trial proceedings and (5) due to cumulative error. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Johnny Graham, was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a term of nine years and placed him on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was arrested for the unlawful possession of cocaine and multiple firearms. Following a hearing, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered him to serve the full term in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his suspended sentences. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Michael Stacey James May, was convicted by a Johnson County Criminal
Court jury of first degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, conspiracy to commit
especially aggravated kidnapping, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion. The trial
court imposed an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant
contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. However, because the
appeal is untimely and the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing of
the notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Asben K. Chapman, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony offense. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the trial court improperly admitted pretrial statements; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation for his first degree murder conviction and attempted first degree murder convictions; and (3) the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Petitioner, Keyshawn D. Fouse, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ confinement. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise him of the importance of his testimony at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Kenneth Street, pled guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance in exchange for two consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, both of which would be suspended and deferred.  As part of the guilty plea agreement, the State dismissed several charges.  Defendant subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.  The trial court denied the request.  Defendant appealed.  Upon our review, we conclude that Defendant has failed to prepare a sufficient brief in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b).  Accordingly, his issues are waived, and the appeal is dismissed.

Petitioner, Paul Clifford Moore, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his “Motion for Plain Error Review in an Alternative Petition for Extraordinary Writ.” He argues that the trial court’s sequential jury instructions were improper and prevented the jury from returning a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that Petitioner does not have an appeal as of right under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Scott Alan Haynes, Jr., was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of second degree murder and reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon and received consecutive eighteen- and two-year sentences, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction and that his eighteen-year sentence for the conviction is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The pro se Petitioner, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, appeals the Davidson County Criminal
Court’s summary denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because the petition
was filed well outside the one-year statute of limitations and the Petitioner has not shown
any grounds to warrant equitable tolling, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale, appeals his Maury County convictions for vehicular assault, driving under the influence (second offense), simple possession of cocaine, and failure to exercise due care.  He contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of blood alcohol concentration testing; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for vehicular assault; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering restitution.  Upon review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, affirm the restitution order in part, vacate the restitution order in part, and remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.      

An Anderson County jury convicted Defendant, Michael Christopher Simonds, of attempted aggravated rape. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the State made improper comments in its closing argument. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Gemeyal Strowder, was charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and theft of property valued at one thousand dollars ($1000) or less. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery, and the remaining charges were dismissed with the sentence and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Luis Mendoza-Sanchez, of multiple offenses against two victims, a child and her mother, including aggravated assault of the mother, rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual assault of the child.  He was additionally convicted of violating the Child Protection Act.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifty-nine years of incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever the trials for charges against the victim and her mother; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to ask leading questions of their own witness; (3) the trial court erred when it limited the Defendant’s cross-examination of an expert about the victim’s sexual orientation; and (4) the cumulative effect of these errors entitled him to a new trial.  After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Petitioner, Isaih Tatum, pleaded guilty to possession of more than 0.5 grams of
methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver and unlawful possession of a weapon by a
convicted felon and received an agreed sentence of ten years. He subsequently filed a
petition for post-conviction relief, which the McMinn County Criminal Court denied after
a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it
denied relief on his claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that
his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following a thorough review,
we affirm.