APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Robert Wayne Garner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by not allowing one of his witnesses to finish testifying at the evidentiary hearing. After review, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Defendants, Alexander R. Vance and Damonta M. Meneese, were each convicted of second degree murder, first-degree murder in perpetration of a felony, especially aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault. As to each, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into that for first-degree murder, imposing an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus 21 years. In these consolidated appeals, both defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay testimony by a State witness regarding a statement made by a co-defendant whose charges had been severed from the two defendants in this matter. Additionally, the Defendant Vance argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, and the Defendant Meneese argues that the trial court erred by ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as to both defendants.

The Defendant, Demetrius Grimes, was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree murder; five counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony; four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony with a prior dangerous felony conviction; two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery; two counts of attempted carjacking; one count of attempted first-degree murder with serious bodily injury; two counts of assault; and one count of simple possession of a controlled substance, third offense. The sentences for the attempted first-degree murders of Michael Dixon and Carl Chesney were ordered to be served consecutively to each other, as well as to both of the 10-year sentences for employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, which were, in turn, to be served consecutively to each other, resulting in a total effective sentence of sixty years. Further, all the sentences were to be served consecutively to a sentence for a prior conviction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that, since the State argued at trial that Michael Dixon was the intended target of the shots, the attempted first-degree murder conviction for the shooting of Carl Chesney could not stand. Further, the Defendant argues on appeal that the multiple convictions for employment of a firearm during the commission of multiple dangerous felonies cannot stand, for the evidence showed that the Defendant used only one weapon, thus supporting only a single firearm conviction; and that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. The State agrees on appeal that the court erred as to sentencing in Counts 15 through 18, which enhanced the Defendant’s sentences for employing a firearm during the commission of four attempted dangerous felonies, for the prior felonies upon which the enhancement was based, were not “dangerous” felonies, as required by statute, but, rather, were simple drug possession convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions as to Counts 15 through 18 and dismiss those charges. We reinstate the convictions for Counts 2, 4, 8, 10 and 12, which were merged into Counts 15 through 18, and remand for entry of amended judgments. We conclude that the other issues raised on appeal by the Defendant are without merit.

The Appellant, Robert Derrick Johnson, was found guilty of robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Appellant as a Range II multiple offender to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial and that the trial court erred by declaring a mistrial in his first trial; therefore, his conviction following a second trial violates the principles of double jeopardy. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Antonio Benson, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on selfdefense, that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence about a prior violent act committed by the victim, that the trial court erred by preventing him from sitting at counsel table during the trial, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and that the State failed to show the error was harmless. Accordingly, the Appellant’s conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Petitioner, Derrick Pierce, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial which forced him to plead guilty after the trial began, and the State had presented proof. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Lamar M. Cullom, appeals the White County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance with regard to Exhibit 6, an unedited audio/video recording of the drug transaction between the Petitioner and a confidential informant that was not shown to the jury. The Petitioner specifically contends that (1) trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s comment that the unedited recording did not have “substance”; (2) trial counsel failed to use the unedited recording during his cross-examination of the confidential informant; (3) trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s comment to the jury that the unedited recording contained just transportation, that no one was there, and that anything else on it was irrelevant; (4) trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s comment to the jury that the trial court was correct in stating that the unedited recording contained just transportation, that no one was there, and that anything else on it was irrelevant; (5) trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s ruling that the jury could not view the unedited recording; and (6) the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors prejudiced him. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Heather Rogers McCollum, appeals from the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) trial counsel “did not move to suppress her confession at trial”; and (2) appellate counsel did not “address the issue of the physical facts rule in his appellate brief.” Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post conviction court.

The Petitioner, James Carroll, filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated assault and driving under the influence (DUI), second offense and effective four-year, six-month sentence. In the petition, the Petitioner alleged that (1) the State violated his due process rights by failing to collect and preserve evidence pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), and that (2) his trial counsel was ineffective (a) by failing to challenge the State’s Ferguson violation and (b) by advising the Petitioner to waive his motion for new trial and his direct appeal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Narrell Pierce, filed for post-conviction relief from his convictions of attempted aggravated robbery, attempted second degree murder, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. The Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his attempted aggravated robbery conviction, (2) failing to object to his co-defendant’s testimony, (3) depriving the Petitioner of his constitutional right to testify, and (4) failing to present a ballistics expert. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

After a jury trial, Kristina Cole was convicted of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count one, conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count two, facilitation of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count three, and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count four. The jury found Montez Mullins guilty of facilitation of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count one and facilitation of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count two. Defendant Cole received a total effective sentence of thirteen and one-half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant Montez received a total effective sentence of thirty years as a career offender. On appeal, both Defendant Cole and Defendant Montez argue that the evidence at trial was insufficient for a rational juror to have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Defendant Cole argues that the trial court erred by allowing Detective Gaia and Investigator Brown to speculate about the meaning of text messages between Defendant Cole and Defendant Jason White. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Rico Eugene Mallard, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he challenged his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and first degree premeditated murder and his effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-two years. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The Petitioner, Alexander R. Carino, pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to forty-three years of incarceration. The Petitioner did not appeal his convictions and did not file a timely post-conviction petition. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, which the habeas corpus court summarily dismissed. This court affirmed. Alexander R. Carino v. State, M2017-00345- CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3311196, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 3, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017). The Petitioner filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred and should have waived the statute of limitations because his trial counsel did not give him his case file to prepare the petition and because he had been denied access to the prison legal library, thereby delaying the filing of his petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Petitioner, O’Dell Taylor Wisdom, appeals from the summary dismissal of his pro se pleading in which he alleges that his convictions for failure to appear and contempt violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Terrence Justin Feaster, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, which petition challenged his 2012 Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Appellant, Quinton Dujaun Primm, was convicted in the Dickson County Circuit Court of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and selling less than one-half gram of cocaine, a Class C felony, and received consecutive sentences of twenty-five and fifteen years, respectively. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing a lay witness to testify about what the witness heard on an audiotape, that the trial court erred by refusing to declare a mistrial when a witness revealed that the Appellant had been incarcerated previously, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Edwin Millan, appeals his Bradley County Criminal Court jury convictions of filing a false or fraudulent insurance claim, initiating a false police report, and tampering with evidence. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to correct false testimony offered by a State’s witness, that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that certain witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law, that the trial court erred by permitting a witness to testify as an expert, that the trial court erred by permitting certain testimony, that the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the evidence tampering charge, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred by ordering a fully incarcerative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In 2014, the Petitioner, Randall Wallace Kidd, pleaded guilty to filing a false police report; he later filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, which the trial court denied. While released on bond, the Petitioner failed to appear for his sentencing hearing and was indicted and convicted at trial for failure to appear. The trial court imposed a nine-year sentence for the false police report conviction and a consecutive three-year sentence for the failure to appear conviction. In 2016, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had not entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily due to intoxication and that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at his guilty plea hearing and at trial. The post-conviction court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, David Englebert, entered guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and four counts of aggravated assault pursuant to a plea agreement, in exchange for an effective sentence of twelve years to be served with an eighty-five percent release eligibility date. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he was never informed of the elements of the offense of aggravated robbery. The post-conviction court denied his claim without making any findings of fact, and the Petitioner appeals. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established prejudice with regard to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment denying that claim. Because there is inconsistent evidence regarding whether the Petitioner was informed about the elements of the offense, we remand for the post-conviction court to make factual findings and credibility determinations relevant to the claim that the Petitioner’s pleas were not knowing and voluntary.

Defendant, Richard Lee Diviney, Sr., contends that his guilty plea should be set aside because the fee provision of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-420(h)-(j) is unconstitutional and that the trial court erred by not “actually” applying a mitigating factor during sentencing. After a thorough review, we determine that Defendant’s challenge to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-420(h)-(j) was resolved by the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Decosimo, 555 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. 2018). Additionally, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion when sentencing Defendant. Thus, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand for entry of corrected judgments that properly indicate the merger of Counts Two and Three into Count One.

The Appellant, Edward Dewayne Shelton, Jr., appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his “motion to dismiss the indictment and motion to withdraw guilty plea and motion to correct illegal sentence.” The Appellant contends (1) that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was timely filed because there was no file stamp date on the judgment form; (2) that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel; (3) that the charging indictment was void because it “was only signed by the foreman of the grand jury”; and (4) that his sentence was illegal because he was classified as a Range II, multiple offender rather than a Range I, standard offender. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief based on the post-conviction court’s finding that the Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his pro se petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing, and the State concedes that the post-conviction court erred. After a review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing.

The Petitioner, Michael J. McCann, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that a probation revocation involving certain 1994 drug convictions was in error and that the erroneous probation revocation led to an incorrect calculation of his pretrial jail credits. After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the habeas corpus court did not commit error, and we affirm the habeas court’s dismissal of the petition.

Petitioner, Raymond Arthur Klein, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After thorough review, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove that trial counsel’s performance was deficient and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Tracy Douglass, of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to declare a mistrial following the State’s improper statements during closing argument. He also asserts that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.