APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Martrice Thomas, of first degree premeditated murder.  The Petitioner appealed her conviction, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  State v. Martrice Thomas, No. W2017-02489-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 6266277, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nov. 29, 2018), perm.  app. denied (Tenn. March 28, 2019).  On April 6, 2020, more than a year after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that her trial counsel was ineffective.  After a hearing, the trial court denied relief, finding that the Petitioner had received the effective assistance of counsel.  The Petitioner appeals, maintaining that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of Battered Woman Syndrome at trial.  Because the post-conviction court treated the petition as timely from the outset of the hearing, thereby preempting any proof the Petitioner may have presented to show that due process considerations required tolling of the statute of limitations, we remand the case for a hearing on the sole issue of the statute of limitations.  

The defendant, James Pitts, pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault in exchange for
a sentence of six years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court.
Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant’s six-year sentence
be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in
imposing a sentence of incarceration rather than an alternative sentence. After reviewing
the record, the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, we conclude the
trial court failed to acknowledge most of the relevant statutory considerations or articulate
the reasons for the sentence of confinement in accordance with the purposes and principles
of sentencing. Therefore, we remand the case for the limited purpose of having the trial
court make the appropriate findings on whether the defendant should receive an alternative
sentence or a sentence of incarceration, noting that the trial court shall fully articulate its
reasoning in accordance with the applicable statutes and case law. Accordingly, the
judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court.

Petitioner, Joshua Allen Felts, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 convictions for theft of property valued at less than $500 (Counts One and Four), attempted theft of property valued at less than $500 (Counts Two and Three), and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 (Count Five). Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to: (1) file a motion to withdraw as requested by Petitioner; (2) object to a witness’s hearsay testimony regarding the ownership of the stolen items in Counts One through Four; (3) challenge the value of the stolen laptop in Count Five; (4) adequately prepare for trial; and (5) adequately communicate with Petitioner. Petitioner further contends that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors entitles him to relief. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction’s court denial of relief as to Petitioner’s conviction in Count Five; however, we reverse the denial of post-conviction relief as to Counts One through Four. We vacate the judgments of conviction in Counts One through Four and remand for a new trial on those counts.

The Defendant, Myles Wiseman, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of rape, a Class B felony; two counts of incest, a Class C felony; and two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, a Class C felony.  He was sentenced by the trial court to thirty years at 100% as a Range IV, career offender for the Class B felony rape conviction and fifteen years at 45% as a Range III, persistent offender for each of the Class C felony incest and statutory rape convictions.  The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of ninety years in the Department of Correction.  The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce the Defendant’s recorded phone calls from the jail; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence.  Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.   

For the second time, the Defendant, Bruce Antione Cole, appeals the trial court’s order of
restitution in the amount of $25,474.16 associated with his convictions for aggravated
assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Specifically, the Defendant argues
that the trial court abused its discretion by reinstating a restitution amount that was not
substantiated by evidence in the record and by failing to consider the Defendant’s financial
resources and future ability to pay. After review, we reverse the restitution order of the
trial court and remand for a new restitution hearing.

A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Courdarrius Perkins, of first-degree felony
murder and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a concurrent
sentence of life imprisonment for felony murder and five years for aggravated robbery. On
appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the underlying
felony on the felony murder charge and compounded the error by failing to require the
State to elect the facts for the underlying felony. He also contends the trial court erred in
denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the felony murder charge because the
evidence is insufficient. After reviewing the record, the briefs and oral arguments of the
parties, and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dale Anthony Wilbourn, was convicted of the offenses of evading arrest
and making an improper turn. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective
term of six years to be served in custody. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence
is insufficient to support his conviction for evading arrest and that the trial court erred in
not imposing an alternative sentence to incarceration.1 On our review, we respectfully
disagree with the Defendant and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Ladon Antoine Doak, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Gregory Lavelle Lilly, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35. Upon review of the motion filed by appointed counsel, and in light of the record on appeal, the Court hereby affirms the order of the trial court.

Defendant, Michael E. Odom, was convicted by a Houston County jury of assault and elder abuse. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence, suspended to supervised probation after sixty days of incarceration. Defendant appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. On appeal, Defendant argues that the jury instruction on elder abuse was incomplete and that the trial court improperly commented on matters of fact during trial testimony. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Deshawn Eugene Williams, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his previously ordered probationary sentence of ten years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give him credit for time successfully served while on probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jerry W. Phillips, Petitioner, appeals from the summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition in which he claimed his convictions were void because there was a fatal variance between the proof at trial and the indictment and that the proof at trial, which differed from the proof at the preliminary hearing, constructively amended the indictment. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The pro se Petitioner, Charles Anderson Clark, Jr., appeals the denial of his motion to
correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Based
on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kyanedre Oshea-Malik Benson, was convicted in the Haywood County Circuit Court of one count of employing a firearm during the attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony; one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class C felony; one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; ten counts of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony.  After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective sentence of sixty-two years in confinement.  On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during the attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter and that the trial court erred by refusing to merge one of his convictions of reckless aggravated assault into his conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this appeal from a resentencing hearing, the Defendant, Darius Henderson, challenges
his total effective sentence of twelve years following his convictions for theft of property
and evading arrest. The Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not applying two
mitigating circumstances and by aligning the sentences to run consecutively. We
respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Petitioner, Michael Bailey, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary
dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Discerning no error, we affirm the
judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Petitioner, Martiness Henderson, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.  Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. 

Defendant, Daryl Deangelo Rollins, pled guilty to one count of reckless vehicular homicide
and two counts of reckless endangerment, as a Range I offender, in exchange for dismissal
of the remaining counts of the indictment with no agreement as to the sentences. After a
sentencing hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion and alternative sentencing.
Defendant was sentenced to six years for reckless vehicular homicide, two years on one
count of reckless endangerment, and one year on the remaining count of reckless
endangerment, to be served concurrently. Defendant appeals, arguing that his sentence for
vehicular homicide is excessive, that the trial court improperly applied enhancement
factors, and that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. We affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Courtney R. Logan, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s
summary dismissal of his fifth petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. Following our
review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules
of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The petitioner, Jessica R. Adkins, appeals the denial of her post-conviction petition,
arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding she received the effective assistance of
counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of
the petition.

The petitioner, Roger Reed, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of postconviction
relief from his 2016 convictions of premeditated first degree murder, felony
murder, and aggravated robbery, arguing that he was deprived of the effective assistance
of counsel at trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Knox County jury convicted the defendant, Erik Courtney Lehto, of two counts of rape
of a child, one count of solicitation of rape of a child, and one count of aggravated sexual
battery for which he received an effective sentence of eighty-six years in prison. On appeal,
the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his
convictions. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a circuit court's disrnissal of an appeal by a Defendant from
judgments entered by a general sessions court. The circuit court dismissed the Defendant's
appeal as untimely. The Defendant appealed that dismissal to this Court. In addition to
asserting that the circuit court erred in concluding her appeal was untimely, the Defendant
also raises issues related to recusal and notice. We affirm the circuit court's dismissal of
the Defendant's appeal.

The petitioner, Jonathan Michael Atha, appeals the denial of his motion for a hearing on
his petition for relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 ("the
Act"). Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Frank Delmar Raines, Jr., Defendant, was indicted for rape, aggravated kidnapping, and
violating the sex offender registry. The third count of the indictment, charging Defendant
for violating the sex offender registry was severed prior to trial. After a jury trial,
Defendant was convicted of attempted rape and attempted aggravated kidnapping. The
trial court sentenced Defendant to 15 years on each offense and ordered the sentences to
be served consecutively. Defendant’s motion for new trial was denied and this appeal
followed. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his
sentence. Because we determine that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to an effective sentence of 30 years, we affirm
the judgments of the trial court. However, because there is no judgment form in the record
for the charge for violation of the sex offender registry, we remand to the trial court for
entry of the same.