APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Tony Arness Degraffreed, appeals from the denial of his petition for post conviction relief, wherein he challenged his Tipton County Circuit Court jury conviction of rape of a child. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.

James Gibbs (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court erred in not giving him his proper community corrections credit. The habeas corpus court dismissed his petition without a hearing, stating that the Petitioner failed to allege a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief and that he failed to establish that his sentence had expired. The Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we hold that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his sentence has expired. Accordingly, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment denying relief.

The Defendant, Brandon L. Kirk, contends (1) that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain his jury conviction for attempted second degree murder and (2) that the effective twenty-two year sentence imposed by the trial court is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing because the trial court failed to state the facts it considered in mitigation and to make the requisite findings to impose consecutive sentencing. After our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Lesergio D. Wilson, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress both the statement he made to police and the evidence seized in his traffic stop, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive service of his sentences. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Quincy D. Moutry, alias, was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from a carjacking in March of 2008. He received an effective twenty-seven-year sentence for those convictions. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to amend the date of the offenses alleged in the presentment after the jury had been sworn. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, the judgments are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Patrick Devin Camp, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement, the Petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated kidnapping and received an effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the performance of trial counsel. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, leading to an involuntary plea, because trial counsel (1) failed to adequately communicate with him; (2) failed to inform him of State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997), due process issues; (3) failed to inform him of the factors involved in a consecutive sentencing determination; (4) failed to properly investigate the case; (5) failed to assess his mental status; (6) “abandoned” the Petitioner’s request to withdraw the plea; and (7) “never intended to fully represent [the Petitioner].” Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Mitchell Darnell Eads, filed in the Claiborne County Criminal Court a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the admission of certain evidence at trial and by erroneously stipulating at the sentencing hearing that the petitioner was a career offender. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner currently appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Thomas W. Farr, appeals the Morgan County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his effective thirtyeight-year sentence is void. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Criminal Court for Carter County sentenced the Defendant, Steven Todd Andes, to community corrections sentences after his convictions in 2002, 2007, and 2010. In January 2012, the Defendant’s probation officer filed an affidavit alleging the Defendant had violated his probation. The trial court issued a warrant, and, after a hearing, at which the Defendant’s probation officer did not testify, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community corrections sentences in all of his cases. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it revoked his probation because the trial court: (1) denied his due process rights by failing to allow him to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; and (2) failed to provide a written statement regarding the evidence and reasons upon which it relied when revoking his probation. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it revoked the Defendant’s probation. The trial court’s judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Appellant, Aaricka Biley, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for aggravated child abuse in Count One and aggravated child neglect or endangerment in Count Two. At trial, after the State’s proof, the trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to Count Two. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced Appellant to thirteen years and six months in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant initiated this appeal. On appeal, Appellant argues: (1) the trial court erroneously failed to compel the State to elect a particular act or injury; (2) the trial court erroneously failed to charge the jury with an enhanced unanimity instruction; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude: (1) after the trial court dismissed one count of the indictment, the State was not required to make an election; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated child abuse. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Joseph Floyd, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of driving under the influence (DUI), Class A misdemeanors, and reckless driving, a Class B misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401, 55-10-205 (2012). The trial court merged the DUI convictions. The Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the DUI conviction and seven days for the reckless driving conviction, all suspended but seven days. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner pled guilty in Smith County to one count of aggravated statutory rape and one count of criminal exposure to HIV and received an effective sentence of twenty years. The petitioner’s guilty pleas were entered with the condition that he reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the search and seizure of certain evidence. The Court dismissed the appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner brought this post-conviction petition asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective in reserving the certified question and bringing the appeal. The post-conviction court dismissed the claim without a hearing or the appointment of counsel, finding that the issues had been previously determined on direct appeal. See T.C.A. § 40-30-106(h) (2010). The petitioner appeals, asserting that this Court on direct appeal concluded it was without jurisdiction and did not rule on the merits of his claims. After a thorough examination of the facts and law, we conclude that the petitioner has stated a colorable claim; and we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Appellant, James A. Lambert, was indicted by the McNairy County Grand Jury for rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, attempted aggravated sexual battery, and incest. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape of a child, incest, and aggravated sexual battery. One count of aggravated sexual battery and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery were later dismissed. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-five years at 100 percent. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Appellant, Joseph L. Lands, pled guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication in McNairy County. Lands, 377 S.W.3d 678, 679 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). Because of a procedural error, Appellant’s appeal to this Court was dismissed and his appeal bond was revoked. Id. at 684. The trial court subsequently granted Appellant’s request for bond while appealing to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The State filed an application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure for an extraordinary appeal arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant the request. We granted the Rule 10 application. On appeal, we conclude that Rule 8(c) specifically states that this Court has jurisdiction to determine questions regarding appeal bonds when an appellant appeals this Court’s determination to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Therefore, we remand this case for proceedings to revoke his appeal bond in the trial court.

Jeremy J. Edick (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of solicitation of rape of a child, and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fifty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his conviction for rape of a child. He also argues that the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I write separately to address the current split of authority on the standard to be applied to appellate review of consecutive sentencing.

The defendant, Mikel C. Hamrick, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for reinstatement of his probationary sentence. Because the trial court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the defendant’s probation, we affirm.

The petitioner, Leon Morris, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The petitioner, Jiovani Castillo Galeana, petitioned the Davidson County Criminal Court for post-conviction relief from his 2011 guilty-pleaded conviction of possession with intent to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine. The conviction resulted in a Range I sentence of 18 years to serve in the Department of Correction. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and following our review, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

Don Mask Brown, Jr., (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of fifty-five years’ incarceration. The Petitioner, pro se, subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief. The post-conviction court summarily denied relief, and this appeal followed. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant-Appellant, Donta Henry Ivory, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation. Ivory entered a guilty plea to statutory rape, and he received a suspended sentence of two years. In a separate case, he later entered a best interest plea to an amended charge of aggravated assault and received a five-year suspended sentence concurrent with the previous two-year sentence. On appeal, Ivory argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Scotty Dale Staggs, was indicted by an Overton County Grand Jury for aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, theft of property valued at $500 or less, and evading arrest. Prior to trial, the State entered a nolle prosequi on the charge of theft of property valued at $500 or less. Staggs was subsequently convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, a Class E felony; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of fifteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction and six years for the theft conviction and sentenced him to a concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor evading arrest conviction, for an effective sentence of fifteen years in confinement. On appeal, Staggs argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, and evading arrest; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever the evading arrest charge from the aggravated burglary and theft charges; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the victims’ surveillance videotape into evidence; (4) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight; (5) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its opening statement; and (6) his sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Stephen Miguel Hernandez, and co-defendant, Justin Dexter Brummett, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in October of 2010 for first degree murder and aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of felony murder and the lesser included offense of facilitation of aggravated robbery. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the felony murder conviction and five years for the facilitation of aggravated robbery conviction, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. After the denial of a timely motion for new trial, Appellant appealed. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the credibility of his accomplice’s testimony. After a thorough review of the record and authorities, we determine that the testimony of co-defendant Brummett was sufficiency corroborated by other State witnesses. Further, the jury assessed the credibility of the witnesses and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for felony murder and facilitation of aggravated robbery, a task within their province. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, James Wallie Robertson, appeals the Lawrence County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 1995 guilty pleas to first degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, automobile burglary, two counts of forgery, and passing a forged check and his effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty-five years. He contends that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Williamson County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Robert Jason Burdick, of rape, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions, and the trial court’s jury instructions regarding the kidnapping offense in light of State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.