APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Tarik Deshawn Newman, for one count each of aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury, and theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000.  Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of nineteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility.  On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; and (5) that the sentences were excessive.  Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Curtis O. Shelton, Jr., was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate burglary, felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate theft, especially aggravated burglary, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated kidnapping, and seven counts of attempted aggravated robbery.  The trial court merged the felony murder convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life plus twenty years.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statement, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the felony murder convictions, and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing.  We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Frank E. Small, was convicted in 2016, after a jury trial, of robbery and home improvement fraud. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Frank E. Small, No. E2017-01266-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 2383033, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 13, 2018). Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received 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.

The Defendant, Jerry Carter, Sr., appeals from his jury convictions for three counts of rape of a child, three counts of incest, three counts of soliciting the sexual exploitation of a minor, and one count of child abuse and his resulting sentence of 168 years, 11 months, and 29 days. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred when it ruled that the Defendant’s prior 2003 convictions for statutory rape and sexual battery were relevant and admissible; (2) the trial court’s rulings regarding the defense’s ability to cross-examine witnesses impermissibly restricted the Defendant’s right to put on a defense; (3) the trial court erred when it characterized the text messages between the Defendant and one of the victims as a confession or admission against interest and gave the jury the corresponding instruction; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors entitle him to a new trial. Though we do not find that any of the issues raised by the Defendant entitle him to relief, we remand this case due to errors with the judgment forms—there was no judgment form entered for Count 8 (aggravated sexual battery), which was dismissed, and the trial court’s imposed sentences of twelve years for both Counts 9 and 10, but the judgment forms incorrectly reflect sentences of eight years. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.

Petitioner, Shaun Rondale Cross, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell twenty-six grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced to twenty-five years as a Range III, persistent offender. After an unsuccessful post-conviction petition, Petitioner filed a second post-conviction petition along with an untimely petition for writ of error coram nobis based on a claim of newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Following an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the motion to reopen post-conviction and denied the error coram nobis petition. On appeal, Petitioner claims the coram nobis court erred by denying him error coram nobis relief. Following review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Petitioner, Calvin Banks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and being a convicted felon in possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence. Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Calvin Scott, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The Appellant also contends that the trial court had jurisdiction to address an issue regarding his pretrial jail credits and that the trial court should have recused itself from his case. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Damian McGlown, Defendant, was convicted of one count of aggravated rape for “unlawfully, knowingly, or recklessly sexually penetrat[ing] and caus[ing] bodily injury” to his adult niece, and he was sentenced to seventeen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant claims that the evidence failed to show that Defendant caused bodily injury to the victim and, therefore, was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

The Defendant, Juan LaSean Perry, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he challenged his twenty-five-year sentence resulting from his second degree murder conviction in 2005. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Knox County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Kenneth Barnett, for ten counts of aggravated burglary with intent to commit theft, ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft, ten counts of theft, and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed the ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant of six counts of aggravated burglary, six counts of theft, and both counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, for which the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Stevie Michael Irwin, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Petitioner, William Casey, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for first degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of aggravated rape for offenses that occurred in 1979 and 1980. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal, that the
post-conviction court erred in failing to rule upon his motion in limine seeking to exclude the State from presenting any evidence protected by attorney-client privilege, and that the Petitioner is entitled to relief due to cumulative error. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Bryant Christopher Mitchell, Defendant, appeals from his conviction of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a complete review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Defendant, Jaquarius D. Carpenter, was convicted by a jury of possession with the intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, possession with the intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective eighteen-year sentence, as a Range II multiple offender, to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for possession with the intent to sell or deliver cocaine and simple possession of marijuana. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Bert Newby, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court improperly determined that his petition was time-barred and that he presented newly discovered evidence of a witness’s recanted testimony, which may have resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Petitioner, Ethan Alexander Self, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first-degree premeditated murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

A Hardeman County jury convicted the Defendant, Joseph Griggs, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Bradley County jury convicted the defendant, Nicholas Maurice White, of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Erik Sean Potts, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (“DUI”) by impairment (second offense) in exchange for dismissal of four other charges stemming from his DUI offense and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on supervised probation after service of forty-five days of confinement.  The Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, which was based upon an unconstitutional search and seizure.  After thorough review, we conclude that the certified question does not meet the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988), and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.   

In Case No. 113496, Dominick Ratliff, Petitioner, pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone and received a sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility. In Case No. 112791,1 Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine and simple possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner received concurrent sentences of eight years’ incarceration with a thirty percent release eligibility and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration, respectively. The trial court ran the sentences in both cases concurrently, for an effective fifteen-year sentence with a 100 percent release eligibility. Petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, alleging in part that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner now appeals. Following a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Lorenzo Barnhill, claims the trial court erred by finding that he was a dangerous offender and ordering his four-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-106 to be served consecutively to his effective seven-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-334. After a review of the record and applicable law, we determine that the trial court provided reasons on the record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was an offender whose “record of criminal activity is extensive.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2). Because the trial court found one of the seven criteria listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in aligning the sentences consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Dewey Burton, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his Knox County Criminal Court Jury conviction of aggravated child neglect, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Unjolee Moore, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Hamilton County Criminal Court, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court filed an order denying relief, and the Petitioner filed a “motion to reconsider.” The post-conviction court granted the motion, vacated its order denying relief, and reopened the proof. Subsequently, the post-conviction court filed a second order denying relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely. The State also argues that the timely filing requirement should not be waived and that even if this court waives timely filing, this court should disregard the evidence presented at the second evidentiary hearing because it is not part of the record. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was not untimely and that the evidence from the second evidentiary hearing is properly before us. However, we also conclude that the
post-conviction court correctly denied the petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Rufus Stevens, was convicted of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him to serve eighteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment because the statute of limitations had run on the offense. The Defendant also contends that the trial court erroneously limited his questioning during voir dire and that it should have granted his motion to suppress several items of evidence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Millard Ellis Spurgeon, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2015 Sevier County convictions for burglary, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, vandalism of property valued at $1,000 or more, and possession of burglary tools, for which he received an effective sixteen-year sentence. Petitioner argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.