APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

The defendant, Bobby Joe Ladd, appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming that the
evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court. Discerning no error, we affirm
the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jeremy Kyle Massey, pro se, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 1999 second degree murder conviction and resulting forty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying him habeas corpus relief. He argues that his conviction and sentence are void because the first degree murder indictment was defective. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Deshaun Jantuan Lewis, of one count of
second degree murder, two counts of felony murder, four counts of aggravated rape,
especially aggravated robbery, and making a false report to law enforcement. The trial court
merged the two felony murder convictions and the second degree murder conviction into one
conviction for felony murder. The trial court also merged one of the aggravated rape
convictions, leaving three remaining aggravated rape convictions. The court then sentenced
the Defendant to an effective sentence of life plus forty-two years in the Tennessee
Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is
insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court improperly allowed the State to
question the Defendant about his gang involvement; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After
a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, William Lynn Boling, Jr., filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Blount County requesting jail credits for time he spent on furlough. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, we conclude that this case is not properly before this court because no appeal as of right exists from the trial court’s denial of the motion. We dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Timothy A. Lowe, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original ten-year sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in placing his entire ten-year sentence into effect. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Alejandro Rivera, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because: (1) counsel failed to “formulate a defense and to present testimony from all essential witnesses;” and (2) counsel failed to file an appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. After a review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Timothy L. Morton, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his three petitions for writ of habeas corpus and its denial of his motion to reinstate these petitions, wherein he alleged that the trial court’s judgment revoking his probation and ordering his one-year sentence for DUI, fourth offense, and two-year sentence for driving in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act (MVHOA) into execution is void. Upon review, we affirm the judgments summarily dismissing the petitions for habeas corpus relief and denying the motion for reinstatement of the petitions for habeas corpus relief.

Petitioner, Roger Hathaway, Jr., pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated arson, attempted second degree murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and received a total effective sentence of 12 years to be served at 30 percent. Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Billy Joe Smith, pled guilty to: (1) possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class E felony; (2) maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances were used or sold, a Class D felony; and (3) two separate counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Due to his prior criminal convictions, Defendant was designated as a Range II multiple offender for each felony conviction, and agreed to a sentence length of four years for each felony. The plea agreement provided for sentences of 11 months and 29 days for each misdemeanor conviction, and for all of the sentences to run concurrently with each other for an effective sentence of four years as a Range II offender. There was no  agreement as to the manner of service of the sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that Defendant would serve the sentence in the Department of Correction. Defendant has appealed and argues that the trial court should have granted him full probation or split confinement, or ordered the sentences to be served in the community corrections program. Following a thorough review we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Rutherford County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Gregory Moore, of one
count of aggravated sexual battery, see T.C.A. § 39-13-504(a)(4) (2006), and three counts
of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, see id. § 39-13-529(b)(1), for offenses
committed against his seven-year-old step-daughter. The trial court imposed an effective
sentence of 13 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his conviction of aggravated sexual battery and the trial court’s
imposition of sentences. We discern an anomaly in the judgments for counts three and four
requiring correction on remand. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court, as
modified.

Appellant, Jermain Sean Lipford, was indicted by the Franklin County Grand Jury for initiating a process to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine, felony possession of drug paraphernalia, reckless endangerment, felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, driving under the influence, violation of the implied consent law, driving on a revoked license, and fourth offense driving on a revoked license. Appellant pled guilty to initiating a process to manufacture methamphetamine. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to eight years, to be served in the Community Corrections program after the service of 150 days in incarceration. After the issuance of a revocation warrant and hearing, Appellant conceded the grounds for the violation of his Community Corrections sentence. Appellant was ordered to serve the original sentence. Appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly determined Appellant was not entitled to jail credit. After a review of the record, we conclude the trial court properly awarded sentencing credits to Appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Tajay Vaughn (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the Petitioner received an effective sentence of thirty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In his petition, he argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty plea and that his plea was constitutionally infirm. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Jimmy L. Smith (“the Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that counts one through four of the indictment underlying his convictions are defective, and, therefore, his judgments of conviction are void. The habeas corpus court denied relief without a hearing. The Petitioner then filed this appeal. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The defendant, Josue Segura, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, Segura argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, by refusing to grant a second mental evaluation, and by allowing the State to introduce certain photographs of the victim. Segura also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authority, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jerome Sawyer, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As grounds for relief, petitioner argues that the trial court improperly enhanced his eighteen-year sentence for aggravated sexual battery by applying enhancing factors, other than prior criminal convictions, not found by a jury. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the court.

A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, George R. Thacker, of solicitation to commit first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it declined to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment and the law regarding accomplice testimony. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Doris Sharphine Halliburton, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to a term of three years, with Halliburton to serve one year in the Dyer County Jail before serving the remaining two years of her sentence on supervised probation. On appeal, Halliburton argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and (2) her sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, James Allen Pollard, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for first degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. The trial court merged Defendants’ murder convictions and sentenced him to life in prison for first degree murder and to 18 years to be served at 100 percent for his especially aggravated robbery conviction, which was ordered to be served consecutively to his life sentence. Defendant appeals his convictions and asserts the following: 1) that the State violated the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), when it failed to disclose evidence regarding State’s witness Anthony Bowers; 2) the trial court erred by refusing to grant Defendant a continuance to investigate Anthony Bowers; 3) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police; 4) the trial court erred by allowing Detective Windsor to testify regarding his opinion about whether Defendant acted in self-defense; 5) the trial court committed plain error by allowing an officer to testify regarding blood spatter; 6) the alleged errors constitute cumulative error requiring a reversal of Defendants’ convictions; and 7) the trial court erred by ordering Defendant’s sentences to run consecutively. After a careful review of the entire record, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and the lengths of his individual sentences; however, we reverse the trial court’s order of consecutive sentencing and remand for a new sentencing hearing in order for the trial court to state on the record the facts which support consecutive sentencing. See State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tenn. 1995).

Defendant-Appellant, Jamel Marsh, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of voluntary manslaughter and received a sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Marsh argues: (1) the trial court’s method of selecting and qualifying the jury violated Tennessee Code Annotated sections 22-2-308 and 22-2-313 and as well as Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (2) the trial court erred in preventing defense counsel from cross-examining Rachel Hixson about whether she received preferential treatment in her unrelated criminal cases in exchange for her testimony against Marsh and erred in preventing defense counsel from making an offer of proof regarding this alleged preferential treatment, thereby violating Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); and (3) his sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and his sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment to show that the jury found Marsh guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

The Defendant-Appellant, Emmett Hartnest, Jr., was convicted by a Hardin County jury of driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with Hartnest to serve ten days in the Hardin County Jail before serving the balance of his sentence on supervised probation. On appeal, Hartnest argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) his sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Eddie L. Readus, was convicted by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury, in count one, of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine and, in count two, of delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine, Class C felonies, as well as, in count three, of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell and, in count four, of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, Class B felonies. The trial court merged count two into count one and count four into count three and sentenced the defendant to fifteen years on the two remaining convictions, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and also argues that the doctrines of double jeopardy, multiplicity and merger prevented him from being sentenced separately on counts one and three. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jonathan Lamont Jones, was indicted by a Dyer County grand jury of tampering with evidence, a Class E felony, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. Jones was acquitted of tampering with evidence and convicted of resisting arrest. He was sentenced to six months probation after serving ninety days in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After the Rhea County grand jury indicted the Defendant-Appellant, Daniel G. Hampton, for one count of first degree premeditated murder, Hampton entered an Alford plea, see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970), to second degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court accepted the parties’ agreed sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction and, after a sentencing hearing, ordered that the sentence be served consecutively to Hampton’s unserved federal sentences. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering a consecutive sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Steve William Pollock, appeals his two convictions for vehicular assault in the Obion County Circuit Court. On appeal, Pollock argues: (1) that the trial court erred in allowing the State’s expert to rely on a study, a copy of which he was not provided, in forming her opinion regarding the likelihood of his intoxication at the time of the collision and (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s proof and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.