APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Mark Tomlin, pled guilty to one count of possession of under 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The Petitioner petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the post-conviction petition, and we affirm that judgment.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Harold Hack, of three counts of vehicular homicide, one count of aggravated assault, one count of felony reckless endangerment, and one count of violating the open container law. For these convictions, the Defendant received an effective sentence of twenty-four years as a Range I, standard offender to be served in the Department of Correction.  In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record, ¹ we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Maurice Pruitt, was convicted of the sale of one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed his petition.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Andre Dotson, appeals from his 2005 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions on two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of robbery. On appeal, the  defendant claims that the trial court erred (1) in joining four indictments for trial, (2) in severing, on the morning of trial, the charges against a co-defendant, (3) in excluding the co-defendant’s pretrial statement as evidence offered by the defendant, (4) in failing to hold that the evidence was insufficient to support three of the convictions, (5) in denying the defendant’s motion to allow him to sit with his attorney at the counsel table, (6) in failing to instruct the jury as to the shortcomings of eyewitness testimony, and (7) in sentencing the defendant as a multiple offender on two convictions and as a persistent offender on two convictions. We reverse one conviction of robberybut affirm the court’s judgments, as modified.

The defendant, Arthur R. Brooks, pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in the Knox County Criminal Court to three counts of robbery, a Class C felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years for each conviction, to be served concurrently, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentences. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentences in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur in the results and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. In this regard, I view the prosecutor’s improper statements to be a matter of serious concern. I disagree, however, with the opinion’s conclusion that the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to a reckless mental state regarding rape of a child.

This is a direct appeal as of right from convictions on a jury verdict of one count of child rape and two counts of rape. For these convictions, the Defendant, Charles L. Williams, received an effective twenty-two-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction with 100% service required.  On appeal, the Defendant raises six issues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony of the victim; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the charges of child rape and rape; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State’s DNA expert witness to speculate about the significance of the ratio of DNA discovered under the Defendant’s fingernails; (4) prosecutorial misconduct requires a new trial; (5) the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions when it stated the elements of child rape could be satisfied by a showing of a mens rea of recklessness; and (6) the trial court erred in failing to merge the lesser rape convictions into the child rape conviction. We have concluded that the trial court erred by allowing certain speculative testimony by the State’s DNA expert witness. We also have concluded that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument. In addition, the two rape convictions should have been merged into the child rape conviction. We have determined that the cumulative effect of the trial errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. Judge Welles also concludes that the trial court erred by giving erroneous jury instructions for the requisite mens rea. We reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.

The appellant, Anthony Alston, was indicted with possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver and felony possession of cocaine. The appellant pled guilty to the charges, but agreed to allow the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the two convictions and imposed a sentence of nine years for possession with intent to deliver more than .5 grams of cocaine. Further, the trial court ordered the nine-year sentence to run consecutively to a sentence for which the appellant was on Community Corrections at the time of the current offense. The appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The majority concludes that there was insufficient evidence that victim Crain was “put in fear.” The majority concludes that Mr. Crain disavowed being “in fear.” I simply disagree. Witness Kevin Young, Mr. Crain’s assistant who came from inside the store, testified that Mr. Crain told him he was being robbed and to call the police, which Mr. Young did. Mr. Crain described how a man jumped into his truck and ordered him to the front of the truck. Mr. Crain described that he was “angry” this was happening to him. He did not like being “backed into a corner at all.” Mr. Crain offered no resistance and somehow exited the truck. Still angry about what was happening, Mr. Crain attempted to close the door and lock the defendant inside. When the defendant saw Mr. Crain’s attempt or “caught him,” the defendant threatened to shoot Mr. Crain. Mr. Crain believed the defendant was armed and saw the defendant reach for his pocket or belt line. Mr. Crain testified “there was too much things going through my mind at the time to actually mentally get a good picture.” Mr. Crain could not identify the defendant.

The Defendant, Robert Lee Hammonds, pled guilty to possession of over 26 grams of cocaine. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved four certified questions of law relating to whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the traffic stop and subsequent search were unconstitutional. He contends that the officer exceeded the scope of the stop and that the mandatory blanket consent form that he signed as part of a previous community corrections sentence did not give the arresting officer consent to search his vehicle. Further, he contends that he revoked any consent given by the mandatory blanket consent. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner pled guilty to three counts of selling cocaine over .5 grams within 1000 feet of a school. He was also convicted in a jury trial of a fourth count for the same offense. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to fifteen years for each conviction to run concurrently. The petitioner was unsuccessful on his direct appeal and appeal of a certified question. The petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that his rights of equal protection were violated. The post-conviction court denied the petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Bradley County jury convicted the Defendant of one count of reckless homicide and one count of abuse of a corpse. The trial judge imposed a three year sentence and a one year sentence, respectively, and it ordered the sentences run consecutively. The trial court determined that the Defendant should receive probation on time served for the three year sentence and probation effective immediately for the one year sentence, in part because the Defendant had already spent sixteen months in jail before trial. The State appeals contending the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant because the trial court mistakenly believed it was required to place the defendant on probation. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Bradley Copeland, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court denied relief, and the Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the trial court erred when it re-sentenced him to a longer effective sentence than he received for his original convictions, and that his guilty pleas were constitutionally defective. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court

I join with my colleagues in all respects, save one, I would affirm the sentence as imposed.

The Appellant, Louis Tyrone Robinson, proceeding pro se, presents a Rule 3 appeal from the  Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his “Motion to Reopen Post-Conviction Petition.” Robinson seeks post-conviction relief in five separate cases arising from crimes which occurred during a period between August 1989 and October 1992. The post-conviction court denied Robinson’s motion on the following grounds: (1) that the motion failed to present a new claim of constitutional error under the limited circumstances set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-117; (2) that no postconviction petition had ever been filed in four of the five cases; (3) that the statute of limitations had expired for post-conviction relief; and (4) that Robinson’s claims had been previously addressed.  Because the Appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirements for appealing the denial of a motion to reopen, this court is without jurisdiction to review the issue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

A Franklin County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, MaryAnn McNeilly, of driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be suspended after serving ten days in confinement; imposed a three hundred fifty dollar fine; ordered that she perform one hundred hours of public service; and suspended her driver’s license for one year. On appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the trial court should have suppressed her statement to a police officer; (2) that the trial court improperly allowed the State to replay a videotape of the appellant’s stop for the jury; (3) that the trial court improperly admitted the appellant’s blood test results into evidence because the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody; (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to allow defense witnesses to testify about the appellant’s character; (5) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (6) that her sentence is excessive; and (7) that these cumulative errors denied the appellant her right to a fair trial.  Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s conviction but modify her sentence to reflect that she is to serve five days in confinement and remand the case for entry of an amended judgment.

The Appellant, Carlos Burris, was convicted by a Madison County jury of misdemeanor possession of cocaine. On appeal, Burris argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.  After review, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

The Appellant, Audra Lynn Johnson, entered a best interest plea and reserved for appeal a certified question of law: whether the trial court possessed territorial jurisdiction to try the out-of-state defendant. We conclude that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The Appellant, Michael Evans, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Evans’ petition was summarily dismissed by the post-conviction court upon grounds that it was time-barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, Evans contends that application of the statute of limitations in this case serves to deny him his right to due process.  Following review of the record before us, we affirm the dismissal of the petition as it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and because Evans has failed to establish any ground which would support a tolling of the statute.

The petitioner, Michael Williams, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to have him undergo a mental evaluation prior to trial. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden that: (1) his counsel was deficient in her performance, and (2) he was prejudiced in his claim of ineffective assistance. We affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The defendant appeals from his jury convictions of criminal trespass (Class C misdemeanor), assault (Class A misdemeanor), aggravated burglary (Class C felony), aggravated assault (Class C felony), and theft (Class A misdemeanor). The defendant received an effective sentence of five and one-half years incarceration plus two jail terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days. Issues presented on appeal are the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the consolidation of offenses from two indictments involving separate dates with a single victim. After review, we have concluded that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the defendant waived the severance of the offenses issue. The judgments from the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant, Antonio George, was convicted of carjacking, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in excusing a prospective juror who had a pending criminal case; (3) the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of the lead investigating officer; (4) the trial court erred in failing to charge the lesser-included offenses of theft and robbery; and (5) the trial court erred by not giving a curative jury instruction regarding a comment made by the prosecutor. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge against the defendant.

Defendant, Marco Hughlett, was indicted under alternative theories, charging Defendant in count one with committing aggravated robbery by violence, and in count two, with committing aggravated robbery by placing the victim in fear. The jury convicted Defendant under both counts.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to eleven years for each conviction. The trial court merged Defendant’s conviction of aggravated robbery in count two with his conviction of aggravated robbery in count one. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Proceeding pro se, the petitioner, Miko T. Burl, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding. On appeal, the petitioner contends the court erred by dismissing his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing and claims he is entitled to relief based upon the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Following our review, we dismiss the appeal.

The Petitioner, Harvey S. Burns, ¹ pled guilty to selling less than one-half gram of cocaine. At the guilty plea hearing, the Petitioner accepted a sentence of thirteen years as a Range III, persistent offender. The Petitioner timely filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, and after being appointed counsel, filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.