APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Deaundra Donnell Smith, of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for mistrial based upon the State’s alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence; and (3) the trial court erred when it failed to admit into evidence a text message sent from one of his co-defendants to the other co-defendant. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, John Edward Lewis, was convicted of vandalism of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony.  On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the value of the damaged property for the purposes of the grade of the offense and restitution.  Upon review, we find that the evidence was insufficient to establish the value of the property damaged.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and modify the Defendant’s conviction to vandalism of property valued at less than $500, a Class A misdemeanor.  The case is remanded for a hearing to determine the sentence and the amount of restitution.

The defendant, Mark A. Crites, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class C felony.  On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, and that the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination of the victim.  After reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Billy Stewart, was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of four counts of aggravated cruelty to animals, Class E felonies, and one count of cruelty to animals, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-212, 39-14-202 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years for each felony conviction and to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor conviction. The court ordered partial consecutive sentences, for an effective four years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated cruelty to animals convictions, (2) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence at the trial, (3) the State improperly withheld exculpatory evidence, and (4) the trial court erred during sentencing. Although we affirm the Defendant’s convictions, the judgment form for Count 5 erroneously reflects that aggravated cruelty to animals is a Class D felony rather than a Class E felony, and we remand for entry of a corrected judgment for that count.

Matthew Alton King (“the Defendant”) entered guilty pleas in case number CR087458 and CR087459 with the length of sentence and manner of service to be determined by the trial court.  After the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sixteen years’ incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant challenges both the length of his sentences and the denial of alternative sentencing.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Joseph K. Norris, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury in an 11-count indictment for one count of attempted second degree murder, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of especially aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated assault, three counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of reckless endangerment. Defendant entered open guilty pleas to one count of attempted second degree murder, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of especially aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated burglary, three counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of reckless endangerment. Defendant agreed he would be sentenced as a Range II offender. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve 20 years for his attempted second degree murder conviction; 40 years at 100 percent for each of his three especially aggravated kidnapping convictions; 20 years for his especially aggravated burglary conviction; ten years for his aggravated burglary conviction; 20 years at 85 percent for each of his three aggravated robbery convictions; and four years for his reckless endangerment conviction. The trial court ordered that Defendant’s sentences for attempted second degree murder, especially aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery run concurrently with each other but consecutively to his sentences for three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, which the trial court ordered to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of 140 years. Defendant’s sentences for aggravated burglary and reckless endangerment were ordered to be served concurrently with all other counts. Defendant appeals as of right, arguing that his sentence is excessive. After a careful review of the record on appeal and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Samuel L. Giddens, filed in the Williamson County Circuit Court a motion to correct his sentences pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, alleging that his sentences were illegal because he had not received mandatory pretrial jail credits.  The motion was summarily denied, and the appellant appeals this ruling.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Putnam County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Donald Ray Williams, of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years at thirty percent release eligibility for the attempted second degree murder conviction, twenty years at one hundred percent release eligibility for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and twenty years at one hundred percent release eligibility for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction.  The trial court ordered the twenty-year sentences to be served consecutively to one another and concurrently with the ten-year sentence, for an effective forty-year sentence in the Department of Correction.  The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Dewayne Henson, was convicted by a Maury County jury of reckless endangerment.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 11 months and 29 days and ordered that he serve 45 days in confinement, with the remainder of his sentence to be served on supervised probation.  On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in admitting color photographs of the victim’s injuries; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the Defendant.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Antwon Cook, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court found that the appeal was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations and that due process did not necessitate an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the petitioner contends that equitable tolling is warranted because his plea agreement that allowed for concurrent service of a state and federal sentence is not being honored. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. 

The Petitioner, Phillip Wayne Kelley, appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his convictions by the Circuit Court for Maury County.  On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate his convictions because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to convict and sentence him.  Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jackie D. Seymore, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from his convictions for rape of a child.  On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant, Patricia Smith, was convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced her to three years, suspended to probation after forty-five days in confinement. On appeal, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Joseph Cordell Brewer, III, was convicted of theft of property of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony; evading arrest, a Class D felony; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to serve twelve years for the theft of property conviction, twelve years as a Range IV, career offender for the felony evading arrest conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor evading arrest conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to a prior sentence because the offenses were committed while the defendant was on parole. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for theft of property and Class D felony evading arrest. He also argues that the trial court improperly classified him as a persistent and career offender. After our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for theft of property but that his conviction for Class D felony evading arrest should be reduced to Class E felony evading arrest. Further, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant as a persistent and career offender, but we remand the case for resentencing on the Class E felony.

The defendant, Torrie D. Carter, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure to correct an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the summary dismissal of his motion.

The petitioner, Gene Earl Stanley, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his Sumner County Criminal Court jury convictions of one count of burglary, two counts of theft of property, felony evading arrest, reckless endangerment, driving under the influence of an intoxicant, and driving on a suspended license, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.  Because the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence facts that would support a conclusion that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s deficient performance, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant, Anthen Lee Parker, who entered pleas of guilty in two separate cases to driving after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender, appeals a certified question of law related to the validity of an earlier judgment declaring him a motor vehicle habitual offender. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner, Sylvia Laird, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief.  She claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when she was erroneously informed that she could not file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea before sentencing.  Consequently, Petitioner argues that a subsequent guilty plea agreement that determined her sentence was unconstitutional because it was entered unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently.  After a careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that Petitioner has proven that she is entitled to post-conviction relief and, therefore, reverse the decision of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, David Edward Niles, was indicted for, and ultimately convicted of, first degree murder in Bedford County.  State v. David Edward Niles, No. M2011-01412-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 1965438, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 1, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2012).  His direct appeal was unsuccessful.  Id.  He subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.  After a hearing, the petition was dismissed.  On appeal, Petitioner insists that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition for relief and that he received ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel.  After a review, we determine that Petitioner failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.  Further, we determine that Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the effectiveness of post-conviction counsel.  Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Vernon Lavone Roberts (“the Petitioner”) appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner’s claim was previously determined by this Court on direct appeal.  Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Harry Joseph Chase, appeals as of right from the Greene County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because lead trial counsel was not present when he pled guilty, did not review the Petitioner’s discovery with him, and did not fully discuss a possible self-defense claim with the Petitioner. Following our review, we conclude that the record supports the post-conviction court’s conclusion that the Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Douglas Wayne Young, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2009 Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, especially aggravated kidnapping, and four counts of aggravated rape, claiming that the post-convction court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, David Wayne Britt, appeals the Circuit Court of Hardeman County‘s denial of his third petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court‘s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State‘s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.