APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Stephen M. Mobley, of two counts of
first-degree premeditated murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, one count
of aggravated assault, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a
dangerous felony. The trial court merged the attempted first degree murder and aggravated
assault convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twentysix
years. In his first appeal, the Defendant contended that the trial court erred when it
failed to make requisite findings based on Batson v. Kentucky regarding the State’s use of
a peremptory challenge to strike an African-American potential juror during voir dire.
State v. Stephen Maurice Mobley, No. E2020-00234-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 3610905, at
*1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 31, 2021). This court remanded the case for the
trial court to make appropriate findings pursuant to Batson. On remand, the trial court
concluded that the State’s exercise of the peremptory challenge did not violate Batson. The
Defendant again appeals, contending that the trial court erred. After our review, we affirm
the trial court’s judgments.

The Appellant, Michael Dominic Sales, appeals the post-conviction court’s order dismissing his post-conviction petition as untimely. Appointed counsel has moved to withdraw pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 22. That motion is denied. Upon review of the appellate record on file, this Court hereby affirms the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

The petitioner, Kevin McDougle, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s
summary denial of his sixth pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Based on our review of the record, the parties’
briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Jermaine Campbell, pleaded guilty to aggravated statutory rape, and the trial court imposed a sentence of eight years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we conclude that a new sentencing hearing is necessary because the trial court failed to place the appropriate findings on the record. Additionally, corrected judgment forms are needed in counts one and two. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court.

A Monroe County jury convicted the Defendant, Steven Shawn Bowen, of driving under
the influence, third offense, driving on a revoked license, second offense, and violation of
the financial responsibility for a motor vehicle statute. On appeal, the Defendant asserts
that the trial court erred when it: (1) “refused to allow [the Defendant] a court reporter;”
(2) denied his motion to dismiss based on the State’s failure to preserve video footage of
the stop and arrest; (3) denied his motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations; and
(4) admitted the official toxicology report in the absence of witnesses to establish chain of
custody for the blood sample. Finally, the Defendant claims that there is insufficient
evidence to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Darries Leon Jackson, was convicted by a Hawkins County Criminal Court
jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The
Defendant raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
conviction; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the
Defendant’s shooting of the victim’s daughter in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence
404(b); (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the Defendant’s wife to testify about
conversations with the Defendant in violation of the Defendant’s marital privilege; (4)
whether the jury’s overhearing of jury-out proceedings deprived the Defendant of his right
to a fair trial; and (5) whether the Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. Based
on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Kevin Allen Fleming, appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of three counts of
aggravated vehicular homicide and one count of driving under the influence, fourth
offense. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying
relief on his claims alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We
affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Travis Smith, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child. On appeal, the
Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claims
alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Petitioner argues
that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to meet with and keep the Petitioner
informed, (2) failing to object on Confrontation Clause grounds to exclusion of the victim’s
testimony about an indecent exposure incident that occurred at the courthouse during the
Petitioner’s trial and failing to preserve the issue for appeal, (3) failing to find and prepare
witnesses, and (4) failing to properly cross-examine witnesses. The Petitioner additionally
argues that he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After review, we
affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Nicklaus Edward Brush, alias, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court
jury convictions of aggravated kidnapping and domestic assault, arguing that the first count
of the indictment failed to charge an offense, that the evidence was insufficient to support
his aggravated kidnapping conviction, that the State failed to establish venue, and that the
trial court improperly questioned a witness at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Gavin Tyler Sheets, pled guilty to the offenses of vehicular homicide by recklessness and reckless endangerment. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for judicial diversion. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order an alternative sentence to incarceration. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Alvin Stewart, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and domestic assault and his effective twenty-year sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Ricky Durham, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal,
he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely without
a hearing on the merits of his claims. Following our review of the entire record and the
briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Antonio J. Hurt, Defendant, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment after a shooting at a barber shop. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi on the aggravated assault charge, and the State withdrew the reckless endangerment charge. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 8 years. Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed a pro se premature notice of appeal in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal in this Court. This Court waived the timely filing of the notice of appeal. On appeal, Defendant complains about the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of certain testimony of two witnesses, and statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument. After a review, we determine the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendant is not entitled to plain error review of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment form dismissing the count of the indictment for reckless endangerment.

The Defendant, Charles Larry Nichols, III, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence or clerical error, arguing that he was entitled to “street time” credit for the time he served on community corrections but was being supervised by state probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the Defendant was not entitled to the street time credit because he was on supervised probation, not community corrections. However, we remand the case to the trial court for correction of a separate clerical error in the amended judgment of conviction.

After pleading guilty on September 18, 2018, to three counts of aggravated rape in three separate cases, Patrick Marshall, Defendant, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 25 years at 100%.  Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he argued that his sentences were imposed in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-523(e)(3), ordering “aggravated rapists” to serve the entire sentence “if the offense occurs on or after July 1, 2012.”  It is undisputed that Defendant’s offense dates were before July 1, 2012.  The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) should allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits and entering an order directing the TDOC to allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits.  Defendant appealed.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgment forms that reflect Defendant is entitled to earn up to 15% sentence reduction credits.

The Petitioner, Michael Brooks, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial
of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated
kidnapping, facilitation of aggravated robbery, assault, and aggravated burglary, for
which he is serving an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner
contends that the post-conviction court (1) erred in denying relief on his ineffective
assistance claims and (2) deprived him of due process in various respects. We affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Keith Ward, of rape of a child, and the trial
court sentenced him to 32.5 years in prison, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner appealed,
and this court affirmed the conviction. The Petitioner then filed a petition for postconviction
relief in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
meet with him, review discovery with him, and develop an effective strategy before trial.
After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner
maintains his arguments. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s
judgment.

The Defendant, Willie Taylor, was convicted of rape, assault, and promoting prostitution.
The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred by not suppressing his
statement to the police and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for
rape and assault. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Defendant, Clinton W. Bryant, was charged with five counts of rape of a child. Following the State’s proof at trial, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on one of the five counts, and a jury convicted Defendant of the remaining four counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective fifty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever all five counts; that the trial court erred in denying a new trial based on an incomplete trial transcript; and that the cumulation of these errors warrant relief. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Claude James Feagins, appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for an
alternative sentence. The Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary, misdemeanor theft, felony
theft (Class D), and reckless endangerment. A six-year effective sentence resulted, with
the manner of serviced to be determined by the trial court at a sentencing hearing. After a
sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years of
incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion
when it ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. After review, we affirm the
trial court’s judgments.

Defendant, Jerry Lynn Huskey, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his sentence of
probation for aggravated domestic assault, theft under $1,000, evading arrest, and resisting
arrest, and ordering him to serve his original six-year sentence in confinement. Following
our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

The defendant, Leslie Lamont Coleman, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to twenty years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to his sentence in a prior felony murder case. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the only proof connecting him to the crime was the uncorroborated testimony of his alleged accomplice; (2) the trial court committed plain error by ruling the State could question the defendant about his prior felony murder conviction under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 if he chose to testify; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing by imposing the maximum Range II sentence of twenty years. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Vincent John Elliott, Jr., pled guilty to second degree murder and reserved a certified question of law concerning whether his right to a speedy trial was violated. Also on appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to eighteen years instead of the minimum sentence of fifteen years. Upon review, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the Defendant’s certified question and respectfully dismiss that portion of the appeal. We further conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in sentencing the Defendant. Accordingly, we respectfully affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence in all respects.

Following his conviction for first degree murder, the Petitioner, Jose Lemanuel Hall, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to meet with him adequately and failed to object to the State’s opening statement. He also argues that the requirement to show actual prejudice in post-conviction proceedings is overly burdensome and conflicts with constitutional protections. We respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Curtis Morris, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his Shelby County convictions for first degree murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, first degree murder during the perpetration of aggravated child neglect, aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s: (1) failure to call an expert witness to rebut the State’s experts and bolster Petitioner’s testimony that the victim’s death was accidental; (2) making “material misstatements” regarding the evidence in counsel’s opening statement; (3) failure to adequately prepare to cross-examine one of the State’s experts and failure to request a McDaniel hearing to challenge the expert’s testimony; (4) failure to file any pretrial motions; (5) failure to object, during the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Petitioner, to the prosecutor’s repeated use of the word “stomping” to characterize Petitioner’s direct examination testimony; (6) failure to request proper jury instructions regarding the mens rea required for a conviction for aggravated child abuse; and (7) failure to present evidence of child custody proceedings in which Petitioner sought and won custody of his children. Petitioner also contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief based on cumulative error. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.