APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Dickson County jury convicted the Defendant, Lamisha Lanea Haynes, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction; (2) the trial court improperly excluded testimony about the victim’s prior gun use; (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight; and (4) her sentence is excessive. The Defendant also claims that the cumulative error of these issues warrants relief. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Davarious Montral Taylor, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court.  After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

In 2023, the Defendant, Jeremy Allen Stephens, entered a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated child abuse. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted and that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In this interlocutory appeal, the State asks us to review the trial court’s pretrial suppression of data from the Defendant’s cell phone. Before searching the cell phone, law enforcement officers sought and obtained a search warrant, which a magistrate authorized based upon its finding that probable cause existed to support the search warrant. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found on the phone, and the trial court granted the motion. The State asked for, and the trial court granted, an interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s ruling on the motion. After review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress.

The Petitioner, Clarence Willis Moore1 , appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his Class B felony drug convictions, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to review videotape evidence with him or to convey the State’s plea offer, and that the post-conviction court erred by concluding that the Petitioner was not a credible witness. Because the Petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel was previously determined by the trial court in the Petitioner’s motion for new trial, we conclude that the issue is waived. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Royce Scott Earley, confessed to multiple acts of rape against his eightyear-
old daughter, and a jury subsequently convicted him of two counts of rape of a child
(counts one and three), two counts of incest (counts two and four), and one count of
aggravated sexual battery (count five), for which he received an effective sentence of 104
years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant raises three issues for our review: (1)
whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession because it
was not voluntary; (2) whether the State introduced sufficient evidence to corroborate his
confession for counts three through five under the modified trustworthiness standard
outlined in State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014); and (3) whether the trial court
imposed an excessive sentence.1 After review, we affirm.

Herbert Eugene Ewing, Movant, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated
section 39-17-432(h) (2022), seeking resentencing of his guilty-pleaded conviction for
possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within one
thousand feet of a park, for which he was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to
serve the entire minimum twenty-year sentence for a Class B felony. Following a hearing,
the trial court found that it could not resentence Movant to a lower release eligibility
because release eligibility does not affect the length of the sentence and denied the motion.
We grant certiorari to vacate the trial court’s order denying the motion for resentencing
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant, Clarence M. Porter, was convicted by a Loudon County jury of two counts of felony murder, one count of theft of property under $1,000, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. He was also charged with possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, but following a bifurcated trial, that charge was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence for the felony murder, theft, and especially aggravated robbery convictions. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting a hearsay statement by a co-defendant because the State failed to prove that Defendant was involved in a conspiracy with co-defendants; that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because there was no independent proof to corroborate accomplice testimony and the State failed to prove that he was criminally responsible for the actions of his co-defendants or that he independently possessed any criminal intent to commit the charged offenses; that the trial court erred in allowing the State’s lead investigator to reference the Chattanooga Police Department’s “street gangs unit;” and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Following our review of the entire record and the oral arguments and briefs of the parties, we determine that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. Further, following State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223, (Tenn. 2024), because the accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated, we find that the evidence is insufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and dismiss the charges against Defendant.

Petitioner, Antwain Tapaige Sales, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s order summarily dismissing his third state petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that his sentence is void and that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

In this interlocutory appeal, at issue is the appropriate jury instruction to be given in a murder case for a crime committed in 2015 but tried in 2024. In the time between the murder and trial, the Tennessee Supreme Court released an opinion, State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2024), which abrogated the old common-law accomplice-corroboration rule. The State requested the new jury instruction pursuant to Thomas, and the trial court ruled that fairness concerns required the old common-law instruction. The State sought and obtained an interlocutory appeal. On appeal, it asserts that the trial court erred and that the jury should be instructed pursuant to Thomas. After review, we conclude that the Thomas court intended that the new law apply to trials commencing after March 7, 2024. Because the trial for this matter has not yet commenced, the jury in this case shall be instructed in accordance with Thomas and its conclusion regarding the jury instruction about accomplice testimony. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Jeffery Lynn Lane, Jr., was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, driving without a license, and driving without proof of insurance and received an effective twelve-year sentence to be served at eighty-five percent release eligibility. On appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to show he possessed the firearm, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, and that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to introduce evidence of uncharged offenses. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ brief, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dale Steven White, was charged with twelve offenses resulting from his fleeing from the police on three separate occasions on June 13, December 11, and December 13, 2021. The Defendant entered a "blind" plea to each charge on November 16, 2023, and following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-two years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive, that the trial court erred in imposing partially consecutive sentences, and that his judgment forms contain clerical errors. Following our review, we remand for entry of corrected judgments consistent with the trial court's pronouncement of the Defendant's sentence at the sentencing hearing. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, George W. Cosey, pleaded nolo contendere to Class E felony theft and received an agreed one-year sentence. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the Davidson County Criminal Court denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not inform him that, between the time of the offense and Petitioner’s plea, the theft grading statute had been amended. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Christopher Bassett, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for one count of first
degree murder; five counts of attempted first degree murder; three counts of attempted
second degree murder; two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm; eight counts of
employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; and eight counts of
employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony having been convicted
of a drug offense, and his effective sentence of life plus thirty-five years. The Petitioner
alleges that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance
of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Vincent Olajuan Morrison, appeals his convictions for aggravated
burglary, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and
especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty years’
incarceration. On appeal, he argues that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient
to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by admitting certain statements through
the victim’s testimony, which violated the rule against hearsay and the Confrontation
Clause; (3) the State’s cross-examination of a defense witness improperly shifted the
burden of proof to the Defendant; (4) the trial court violated the “spirit” of Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by permitting the Defendant to be tried by an all-white jury;
and (5) his sentence is excessive. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Gibson County jury convicted Defendant, Eric Wayne Herndon, of violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. Defendant received an effective sentence of two years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. After review, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction for violation of an order of protection, and we reverse that judgment and dismiss that conviction accordingly. We also conclude the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking, but we determine that the proof was sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of stalking, which was charged to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking, and we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a conviction for stalking and for resentencing on this modified conviction.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Alonzo Fishback, of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony, for which he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seventy-five years. The Defendant appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed, and he then unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the proven facts of his case did not meet the necessary requirements to be convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court denied this motion, stating that the Defendant’s claim was not colorable under Rule 36.1. The Defendant maintains his argument on appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Bernard Strowder, pled guilty to reckless aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The parties agreed that he would be sentenced to an effective term of ten years but that the trial court would decide the manner in which the sentence would be served. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the full sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the denial of an alternative sentence, but the State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was untimely. Upon our review, we agree that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the interest of justice does not require us to waive the timely filing requirement. We respectfully dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Eric Joseph Mathis, was sentenced to a sum of twenty years of supervised
probation. After multiple probation violations, the trial court revoked the entirety of the
Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the sentences in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
ordering the revocation of his probation because (1) he had treatable substance abuse issues
and financial needs that would be better addressed outside of prison and (2) the trial court
based its orders on the Defendant’s failure to pay restitution without conducting an
ability-to-pay hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court.

The Petitioner, Alexandre Kim, was charged with first degree murder for the October 2012 death of his mother, Estelle Kim. Following a bench trial in 2014, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. In 2017, the Petitioner was transitioned to a Mandatory Outpatient Treatment (“MOT”) program pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303. In 2021, the Petitioner sought to terminate his MOT by filing a petition in the trial court. After several hearings on the matter, the trial court denied his petition based, in large part, on the Petitioner’s request to move out of state. The Petitioner now appeals from this denial arguing he meets all requirements for termination. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Caitlyn Brooke Henson, appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for expungement.  Defendant argues that she is entitled to expungement after her successful completion of a judicial diversion probationary period.  We agree with Defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of an order of expungement pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313.

The Scott County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Brandon Cody Phillips, and his
Codefendant, Amanda Jean Phillips, on one count of aggravated assault, two counts of
especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated child neglect, and one count
of carjacking. Prior to trial, the Defendant filed a motion to sever his trial from his
Codefendant’s trial, which the trial court denied. At trial, the trial court dismissed the
Defendant’s carjacking count, and the jury convicted the Defendant on the remaining five
counts. Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective twenty-fiveyear
sentence for the Defendant’s convictions. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court denied his right to an
impartial jury; (3) the trial court denied his right to a unanimous verdict; (4) the trial court
improperly conducted a “closed-door” severance hearing without the Defendant’s
presence; (5) the trial court failed to comply with the rules of criminal procedure during
this severance hearing; and (6) the trial court improperly denied his severance motion.
After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Alec Byron Harrison, pled guilty to aggravated statutory rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve a three-year sentence in confinement with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to confinement. Upon our review of the applicable law, the record on appeal, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Matthew Cole Welch, Defendant, was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated assault. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder and not guilty of aggravated assault. The trial court denied a motion for new trial and Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder and that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury with a self-defense instruction. After a review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree murder and that Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction where the proof established that Defendant had a duty to retreat and failed to do so. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Crystal Lee Martin, appeals the order of the trial court revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her original six-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm revocation of the defendant’s probation but reverse the trial court’s imposition of the original sentence and remand for the trial court to make findings concerning the consequence imposed for the revocation in accordance with State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022).