APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

William Franklin Robinette (“the Defendant”) appeals his jury convictions for theft of property of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 and theft of property of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. He was sentenced as a multiple offender to an effective sentence of ten years and was fined $10,000. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the length of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences.

A Sullivan County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, David L. Brummitt, of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and reckless aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-four, six, and four years, respectively. The trial court ordered that the appellant serve the six- and four-year sentences concurrently on probation but consecutively to the sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. On direct appeal, this court modified the appellant’s especially aggravated robbery conviction to aggravated robbery and remanded the case for sentencing as to that offense. State v. David L. Brummitt, No. E2009-01358-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 875, at *2 (Knoxville, Oct. 14, 2011), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2011). On remand, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twelve years for the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court also ordered that the appellant serve the six- and four-year sentences in confinement, consecutively to each other, and consecutively to the twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that his twelve-year sentence for the aggravated robbery conviction is excessive and that the trial court’s resentencing him for the aggravated burglary and reckless aggravated assault convictions exceeded the scope of this court’s direct appeal opinion. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the appellant for the aggravated robbery conviction but that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence the appellant for the remaining convictions. Therefore, the appellant’s original sentences for aggravated burglary and reckless aggravated assault remain in effect.

After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of the first degree (premeditated) murder of her spouse and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant raises numerous challenges to her conviction, claiming that: (1) the evidence used to convict her was insufficient, (2) the trial court erred by failing to suppress certain evidence found by the police during a warrantless search of the residence that she formerly shared with the victim, (3) the trial court erred by admitting certain expert testimony, (4) the trial court erred by failing to suppress certain statements she made to police,(5) the trial court erred by admitting evidence relating to a prior domestic disturbance between the defendant and the victim, and (6) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a trial by jury, the petitioner was found guilty of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and possession of dihydrocodeinone, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to seventeen years for possession of cocaine and to a consecutive eleven months and twenty-nine days for possession of dihydrocodeinone, for a total effective sentence of almost eighteen years. His convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and was appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied all claims for relief. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred in denying his motion for recusal and erred in ruling that the petitioner had not received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Johnny Leon Hatcher, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court following the revocation of his probationary sentence. The defendant pled guilty to six counts of manufacturing, delivery, sale, or possession of methamphetamine and received an effective six-year sentence, one year to be served in confinement and the balance on community corrections. A violation report was filed and, following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s sentence and ordered the balance of the original sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant does not contest the trial court’s revocation but argues that the court erred in ordering him to serve the sentence in confinement. After review, we conclude no error occurred and affirm the decision of the trial court.

Romilla Jones (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to two years, suspended to community corrections after service of six months in the county jail. The Defendant appealed, arguing that she should not have been sentenced to any period of confinement. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we have determined that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because the judgment order contains a clerical error, this matter is remanded for the entry of a corrected judgment order.

The Petitioner, Fred Allen Owens, pro se, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 2003 conviction for second degree murder and his resulting thirty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying him habeas corpus relief from his conviction and sentence because the State failed to file notice of its intent to seek enhanced punishment, violating his due process and equal protection rights. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Barry Singleton (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape. In his petition, he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his counsel at trial failed to convey a plea offer to him that he would have accepted instead of proceeding to trial. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Dallas Wyley (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to one count of attempt to commit first degree premeditated murder, one count of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. For these offenses, the Petitioner was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-one years. The incarcerated Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, pro se, which the postconviction court dismissed summarily as untimely. The Petitioner adduced proof that his petition was filed timely pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28. The State concedes that the Petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether his petition was filed timely. We hold that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing the Petitioner’s claim for relief as untimely. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for a hearing to determine whether the petition for post-conviction relief was filed timely and for such other proceedings as may be necessary.

The defendant pled guilty to one count of simple possession of marijuana, reserving a certified question of law concerning the legality of her detention and warrantless search by police. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the defendant has failed to clearly outline the scope and limits of the question presented at the trial court level and thus has failed to properly preserve her certified question. We dismiss the appeal accordingly.

In 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, the Knox County Criminal Court sentenced appellant, Christopher Lee Gibson, to an effective four-year sentence for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed appellant on probation. The court subsequently issued a probation violation warrant alleging that appellant violated the terms of his probation by committing the new offense of possessing a handgun after having been convicted of a felony. Appellant pled guilty, without a recommended sentence, to committing the new offense and stipulated that he had violated the terms of his probation. Following a combined hearing to determine his sentence for the handgun charge and the outcome of his probation violation, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and ordered that he serve the four-year sentence in confinement. The trial court also ordered appellant to serve a sentence of two years for unlawful possession of a handgun concurrently with his original four-year sentence. Appellant contests the trial court’s revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the original four-year sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se defendant, John S. Crandall, was convicted in a Wayne County bench trial of failure to have a valid driver’s license, failure to wear a safety belt, failure to stop at a stop sign, violation of the financial responsibility law, and driving with an expired registration. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of the Tennessee statutes requiring him to wear a safety belt, purchase automobile insurance, and obtain a Tennessee driver’s license when his driver’s license from his former state of residence was not expired. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Thomas Edward Kotewa, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, alleging that DNA testing of clothing he was wearing at the time of the murder to which he pleaded guilty and testing of the murder weapon would have supported his position of self-defense. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. Perceiving no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Ngoc Dien Nguyen, pled guilty to theft over $1,000 and attempted theft over $1,000 and was sentenced as a Range I offender to an effective term of six years in the Department of Correction. The court ordered that the six-year sentence be served consecutively to a Robertson County sentence and a California sentence and that the defendant pay $9,462 in restitution to the victim. On appeal, the defendant challenges the award of restitution. After review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but remand for a new hearing as to restitution.

The Petitioner, Jeffery C. Grissom, appeals as of right from the Warren County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from one of his two attorneys at trial and from appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A  Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Elmi Abdi, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and his status as a Range III offender on direct appeal. State v. Elmi Abdi, No. M2009-01614CCA-R3-CD,2010 WL 2977892 (Tenn.Crim.App.,at Nashville,July29,2010),perm.app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 18, 2011). The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was amended by appointed counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and during his sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition.

The Petitioner, Andre L. Mayfield, filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 in the Davidson County Criminal Court. The lower court treated this motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismissed it. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends that his sentence is void because it is in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-20-111(b). Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The defendant, Martin J. McMurray, was convicted by a Sullivan County Circuit Court jury of driving a lawnmower while under the influence (“DUI”), a Class A misdemeanor; violation of an habitual traffic offender order (“HMVO”), a Class E felony; driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol concentration over .08% (“DUI per se”), a Class A misdemeanor; and DUI, sixth offense, a Class E felony. The trial court merged the DUI and DUI per se convictions into the DUI, sixth offense, conviction and sentenced the defendant to three years on that conviction. The trial court sentenced the defendant to three years for the HMVO conviction, to be served consecutively to the DUI, sixth offense, conviction for an effective sentence of six years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender. The trial court further ordered that the sentences be served concurrently with a violation of probation in another case. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for DUI; (2) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and at the motion for new trial; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance; (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for recusal. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Natayna Daemarie McCullough, was convicted by a Maury County jury of facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the maximum six-year term and denied judicial diversion or any form of alternative sentencing. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) several evidentiary rulings, including an alleged Brady violation and limitations on two witnesses’ testimony; and (3) various sentencing determinations, including the imposition of the maximum sentence,and the denial of judicial diversion or any other form of alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On September 26, 2012, the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2.02, appealed the trial court’s order denying its motion to have the trial judge recused or otherwise disqualified from presiding over the three cases at issue in this appeal. After initial review, this Court, pursuant to Rule 10B, section 2.04, stayed all further proceedings in these cases pending resolution of this appeal. Then, in accordance with the mandate of Rule 10B, section 2.06, that this Court act on an expedited basis, this Court, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2.05, requested and received responses from the defendants on October 8, 2012. The issue presented is as follows: Whether a person of ordinary prudence in the trial court’s position, knowing all the facts known to the trial court, would find a reasonable basis for questioning the trial court’s impartiality in these three cases? After a thorough de novo review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the State’s motion for recusal. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, the trial judge is recused, and the stay previously entered in these cases shall remain in effect until the Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a replacement trial judge, or pending further orders of this Court or the Tennessee Supreme Court.

A Shelby County jury convicted appellant, Corey Noland, of false imprisonment, a Class A misdemeanor; domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor; bribery of a witness, a Class C felony; two counts of coercion of a witness, Class D felonies; and aggravated stalking, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in applying sentence enhancement factors; and (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to engage in “vindictive prosecution.” After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Pro se Petitioner, Eric Tolley, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief seeking analysis of certain evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 (“The Act”). The Petitioner originally entered guilty pleas to three counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of rape of child for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-one years and six months in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant, Carlos Radale Cornwell, appeals his conviction of second degree murder and resulting sentence of thirty-five years. Appellant cites the following errors: (1) the State failed to adequately preserve evidence; (2) the trial court erred in permitting the State’s medical expert to testify beyond the scope of her expertise; (3) the trial court improperly allowed two of the State’s witnesses to testify as experts; (4) the trial court erred in allowing improper testimony of certain lay witnesses; (5) the State improperly argued a theory in its closing argument that was not supported by the evidence; (6) the State failed to provide audio tapes of witness interviews in a timely fashion; (7) the trial court erred by allowing an officer to read aloud the affidavit of complaint supporting a domestic violence warrant taken by the victim against appellant; and (8) the trial court erred in sentencing appellant as a Range II offender and in determining the length of appellant’s sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence.

Petitioner, Randall Turner, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief seeking relief from several convictions in the Hamilton County Criminal Court. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.