APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner,Antwain TapaigeSales,appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder and resulting forty-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in determining that he failed to satisfy the threshold burden to warrant an additional hearing regarding whether the statute of limitations should have been tolled due to his mental incompetence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The State appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the following charges against the Defendant, Jimmy Joyner: driving under the influence ("DUI"), third offense; violation of the open container law; and failure to maintain a traffic lane. The trial court dismissed the charges finding that the State had not commenced prosecution before the expiration of the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the trial court improperly dismissed the charges because the Defendant waived his preliminary hearing and agreed to allow the case to be bound over to the grand jury before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for reinstatement of the indictments against the Defendant.

A Hamilton County jury convicted Defendant, Mario Jones, of possession of more than 50 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve twenty years as a Range I standard offender. In his appeal, Defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) the stop of Defendant’s vehicle and the subsequent detention of Defendant violated his constitutional rights, and the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion tosuppress; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction; (3) the trial court improperly allowed Lieutenant Queen to testify concerning the calendar, notes, and pills found in Defendant’s vehicle; (4) the trialcourt erred in finding that chain of custody had been established; and (5) the trial court erred in rejecting Defendant’s proposed mitigating factor. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part. I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant. I respectfully disagree, however, with its conclusions that the victim was particularly vulnerable and that the three-year sentence should be served in confinement

The defendant, Sherri Mathis, appeals her Warren County Circuit Court jury convictions of two counts of felony murder, see T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(2) (2006); two counts of aggravated child abuse of a child six years of age or less, see id. § 39-15-402(a)(1), (b); two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child six years of age or less, see id.; one count of child abuse of a child six years of age or less, see id. §39-15-401(a); and two counts of aggravated child abuse, see id. § 39-15-402(a)(1). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus 32 years’ incarceration. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erroneously denied her motion for continuance, (2) the trial court erroneously admitted photographs of the deceased victim, (3) the trial court erroneously denied her motion to dismiss the indictment based upon a fatal variance, (4) the trial court erroneously denied a motion for mistrial, (5) the trial court erroneously allowed the State to call the defendant’s civil attorney as a witness knowing that the attorney would claim privilege, (6) the trial court erroneously limited testimony of defendant’s expert witness,(7)the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during opening statements and closing arguments, and (8) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Additionally, the defendant contends that the trial court erroneously dismissed her petition for writ of error coram nobis and erroneously denied her the right to depose Doctor Bruce Levy concerning the claims contained in the coram nobis petition. We discern that the trial court failed to merge certain counts and failed to enter judgments as corrected at the hearing on the motion for new trial. We further conclude that the State failed to establish serious bodily injury with respect to the defendant’s convictions of aggravated child abuse in Counts Eight and Nine and direct the trial court on remand to enter judgments reflecting convictions of child abuse and three-year sentences. Accordingly,the case is remanded for the trial court to enter modified judgments in Counts Eight and Nine, judgments effectuating proper merger, and judgments reflecting modified sentences, and we affirm the judgments in all other respects.
 

The Defendant, Joshua Paul Lewis, was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of a child and one count of attempted rape of a child. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years on each of the rape convictions and to ten years on the attempted rape conviction, all sentences to run concurrently, for an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to variances between the bill of particulars and the proof at trial; and (3) he was denied a fair trial due to cumulative error. After a review of the record and relevant authorities, we have determined that the Defendant’s issue are waived for failing to preserve them in a timely filed motion for new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Appellant,Terrance Gabriel Carter,pled guilty in Marshall County to five counts of violating the sex offender registration act in two separate cases with the length and manner of service of sentence to be determined by the trial court after a sentencing hearing. Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of five years. Appellant appeals his sentence, arguing that it is excessive. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Robert Blake Ball, was convicted by a Greene County jury of attempted second degree murder and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment. In this appeal, Ball challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Randy Parham, of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor. On remand for resentencing following Parham’s first appeal, State v. Randy Parham, No. W2009-02576-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 5271612 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 10, 2010), the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty-five years. In this appeal, Parham argues that the trial court erred by (1) ordering the sentences for attempted first degree murder and aggravated robbery to be served consecutively, (2) ordering the sentence for attempted first degree murder to be served at one hundred percent release eligibility as a “violent” offense, and (3) failing to state on the record which enhancement factors it applied to which offenses while at the same time applying a non-statutory enhancement factor. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in part and reverse them in part. We also note the need for entry of corrected judgments. The case is remanded for entry of judgments in accordance with this opinion.

The Defendant-Appellant, Robin Elizabeth Willis, was convicted by a Hawkins County jury of theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender and ordered her to serve three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Willis argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction; and (2) her sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted appellant, James Allen Gooch, Jr., of one count of the sale of not less than one-half ounce of marijuana, a Schedule VI controlled substance, within 1,000 feet of a school, a Class D felony, and one count of attempted sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony. The trial court ordered appellant to serve consecutive sentences of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the Class D felony and fifteen years for the Class C felony. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever and in sentencing him as a persistent offender. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever the offenses and that the trial court properly sentenced appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Darryl Larkins, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape, and one count of aggravated burglary. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court .

The Petitioner, Charles Montague, appeals from the Washington County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, the Petitioner claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief because (1) he was deprived of pretrial jail credits; (2) his sentence is disproportionate to other sentences from the trial court; (3) an illegal fine was imposed; (4) he was ordered to serve his sentence in “installments”; and (5) the indictment was improperly amended without his consent. We conclude that the Petitioner has stated a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief with regard to his possible entitlement to pretrial jail credits. We remand for a hearing and the appointment of counsel on that issue alone. In all other respects, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

Much aggrieved by the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s sentencing decision following his plea to a community corrections violation warrant, the defendant, Clay Robertson, appeals the trial court’s imposition of an effective sentence of seven years’ incarceration for his guilty-pleaded convictions of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000 and facilitation of aggravated robbery. Discerning no error,we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In May 2010, the Defendant, John Tyler Gilley, pled guilty to aggravated burglary; as a condition of his plea, he was placed on probation for four years and agreed to pay restitution, with the amount of restitution to be determined at a later date. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $3,240, with the Defendant to make installment payments of $90 a month. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court’s imposed restitution was excessive. The Defendant also asserts that the restitution award reflected on the judgment, $9,370 (the victims’ pecuniary loss), is incorrect and contrary to law, requiring him to pay beyond the expiration of his sentence. After reviewing the record, we affirm the restitution amount but remand the case for correction of the judgment to reflect the proper award of $3,240.

The defendant, John Smith, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm  during the commission of a felony and was sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment plus six years. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his felony murder conviction; (3) the trial court erred in its instruction given on the defense of defense of others; and (4) the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Benjamin E. Barlow, pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Hamblen County to Driving Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (DUI), 1st offense, properly reserving for appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A). The certified question is “[d]id the officer have specific and objective facts on which to have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged or had engaged in any criminal activity to warrant a traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle.” After a thorough review of the record and the briefs we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Elijah Truitt, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct his sentence, claiming that his sentence is illegal. The petitioner’s claim that the trial court erroneously imposed a day-for-day service requirement to his 11-year effective sentence is without merit. Thus, the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petitioner’s motion to correct his sentence is affirmed. The record suggests, however, that the trial court failed to grant him credit for time spent on community corrections as required by law. In consequence, we remand the case to afford the pro se petitioner the opportunity to amend his original pleading to a petition for writ of habeas corpus and for the trial court to determine whether the petitioner was given credit to which he is statutorily entitled.

The defendant, Kailyn Loren McKeown, entered a best interest plea to one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”), see T.C.A. § 55-10-401, and reserved a certified question of law concerning the propriety of her detention and arrest. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). Determining that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings as they relate to the scope of the certified question of law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge.

Following the defendant’s open guilty pleas to two counts of driving under the influence ("DUI") (fifth and sixth offenses), see T.C.A. § 55-10-401(2008); three counts of driving while his license was revoked ("DWLR") (one fourth and two fifth offenses),see id.§ 55-10504; one count of violating the implied consent law, see id. § 55-10-406; one count of violating the open container law, see id. § 55-10-416; and one count of reckless driving, see id. § 55-10-205, the Lincoln County Circuit Court imposed an effective sentence of eight years’ incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the length and alignment of the sentences. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Hamblen County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Christopher Bryan Hancock, of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery, all based upon a theory of criminal responsibility. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offense of accessory after the fact, and the trial court’s instruction regarding criminal responsibility. Upon review, we affirm the appellant’s convictions of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, but we must reverse his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping and remand for a new trial for the trial court to instruct the jury as mandated by our supreme court in State v. White, 362 S.W.2d 559, 580-81 (Tenn. 2012).

The Petitioner, Quincy Londale Scott, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the circumstances surrounding his confession to the police and failing to hire a “handwriting expert” to testify about the waiver of rights form signed by the Petitioner. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Marshall County jury convicted appellant, Owen Presley, of two counts of aggravated kidnapping and six counts of rape. The trial court merged the two counts of aggravated kidnapping into one count and the six counts of rape into one count and ordered the appellant to serve concurrent sentences of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal,appellant argues thatthe evidence was insufficientto convicthim and that the trial court should have merged his conviction for aggravated kidnapping with his rape conviction. After reviewing the record, we conclude that appellant untimely filed his notice of appeal and that the interest of justice does not require this court to waive the timely filing requirement. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

A Shelby County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Raymond Buford, charging him with premeditated first degree murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offense and received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) that the trial court erred in llowing testimony of prior bad acts committed by Defendant against the victim. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Montez James (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of five counts of aggravated robbery and four counts of aggravated assault upon nine separate victims. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant as a persistent offender to an effective sentence of seventy years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in the following evidentiary rulings: (1) allowing “cumulative” witnesses to testify; (2) allowing a witness to testify about the Defendant’s gang involvement; (3) admitting the recording of a co-defendant’s guilty plea; (4) admitting testimony about information previously redacted from a co-defendant’s statement to the police; and (5) refusing to admit a police report containing the Defendant’s statement. The Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we have determined that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on any of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.