APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Brandon Lee Laferty, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s revoking his probation for solicitation of aggravated sexual battery, a Class D felony, and ordering his ten-year sentence into execution. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Rashii Brisbon, was charged with aggravated child abuse and first degree (felony) murder after the death of a toddler in his care. A jury convicted him of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, but was unable to reach a verdict on the felony murder charge. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve twenty years in prison. The defendant appeals, asserting that the State did not present evidence sufficient to support the verdict, particularly the mens rea element, and that the trial court relied on inapplicable enhancement factors during sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Christopher Scott Chapman, was indicted by the Sumner County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, charged to the jury as a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder, and the second count of the indictment was dismissed by the trial court. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court to serve six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence and asserts: 1) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to the offense of aggravated assault as a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder; 2) that the trial court erred by not recusing itself; 3) that the trial court erred by sentencing Defendant to the maximum sentence within the range; and 4) that the trial court erred by ordering Defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to a prior sentence for aggravated assault for which Defendant was on probation at the time he committed the offense in this case. After a careful review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Love, of aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-four1 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to suppress a photographic lineup of the Defendant, which he asserts was unnecessarily suggestive; and (2) the trial court erred when it enhanced the Defendant’s sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentence. Having noticed, however, that there are clerical errors in the judgments of conviction for the aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony convictions, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments.

The employee, a surgical technician, worked full-time for the employer at a hospital. In addition to her regular hours, the employee worked on-call shifts on a rotating basis subject to specific rules and restrictions. During an on-call shift, the employee was required to return to the hospital during the early morning hours for emergency surgery. After leaving the hospital to drive home but while still subject to call, the employee was seriously injured in an automobile accident. The employee filed suit for workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court denied recovery, and the employee appealed. In accordance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because the evidence establishes that the employee falls within an exception to the “coming and going rule,” the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for an award of benefits.

This appeal involves the termination of parental rights and adoption. In August 2007, the Department of Children’s Services visited the home of the respondent mother and her 11month-old son based on a referral. After it determined that the mother’s husband had engaged in domestic abuse and that the mother was using illegal drugs, the Department told the mother that her son would be taken into state custody if she did not immediately find someone to care for him. The mother’s neighbor, the petitioner in this case, agreed to take temporary custody of the mother’s son. Even though the child was not actually taken into state custody, but was “safety-placed” with the petitioner neighbor, the Department developed a Family Services Plan, assigning certain tasks to the mother for her to regain custody of her son. After about ten months, before the mother had completed the assigned tasks, the Department closed the mother’s case and ceased any involvement with the child or the mother. The child remained in the custody of the petitioner neighbor and her husband, and the mother visited the child each week. The mother brought the child items such as diapers, milk, and food, but made no monetary payments to the neighbor. When the child was three years old, the petitioner and her husband filed this petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights and adopt the child. After a trial, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights based on failure to comply with the FamilyServices Plan and failure to support. The mother now appeals. We reverse the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
 

Petitioner, Adrain Keith Washington, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to serve twelve years in prison. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied. On appeal, he claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to argue the "rule of cancellation" and by failing to object to certain prejudicial testimony. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant, Adrian Chaney, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury in September of 2009 for one count of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the offenses as charged in the indictment. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years for the conviction for aggravated robbery, and as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years for attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty-two years. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. On appeal, he contends: (1) that the evidence was insufficient; (2) the trial court made several errors with regard to the admission of evidence; and (3) that his sentence is illegal and excessive. After a review of the record, we determine that Appellant waived the consideration of any issues with exception of sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing by failing to file a motion for new trial or show plain error on the part of the trial court. Additionally, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crimes and Appellant failed to provide this Court with an adequate record to review the trial court’s determination of his status as a Range II, Multiple Offender with regard to the conviction in Count II. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Petitioner, Donald Mickens, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Petitioner was convicted of multiple drug offenses. As a result of the convictions, Petitioner was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Donald Mickens, No. W2009-00586-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2697164 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jul. 8, 2010). Petitioner sought pro se post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner initiated this appeal. After a review, we determine the evidence does not preponderate against the judgment of the post-conviction court. Petitioner failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that the performance of counsel was prejudicial. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The State appeals the post-conviction court’s grant of relief to the Petitioner, Kenneth Bartley, contending that (1) the court erred in admitting the affidavit of Dr. James Murray; (2) the Petitioner failed to establish that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; and (3) the Petitioner is entitled to no relief on his previously determined claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

After a 2006 divorce, both parties petitioned the trial court in 2009 for a modification of the parenting plan and to hold the other parent in contempt. The trial court slightly modified the parent visitation schedule and held the father in contempt for violating the parenting plan’s provisions on spring break and medical expense reimbursement. On appeal the father asserts that the trial court erred in the contempt rulings, in not giving him primary custody or substantially equal parenting time and in not holding the mother in contempt. We reverse the father’s contempt for his actions during spring break. In all other respects we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The trial court dismissed this case on the ground that the plaintiff credit card company failed to timely respond to discovery requests. We reverse, concluding that the trial court erred in dismissing the case without sufficient evidence of contumacious conduct on behalf of the plaintiff.

Byron Becton (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of six counts of aggravated rape. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged each alternative count, entering three judgments of conviction for aggravated rape by use of force or coercion while armed with a weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim reasonably to believe it to be a weapon. The trial court also imposed an effective sentence of sixty-five years. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Christopher Scott Mayberry, was indicted by the Humphreys County Grand Jury in June of 2010 for two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell and one count of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. After a bench trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of the sale of methamphetamine. The trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the sale of cocaine. After a sentencing hearing, Appellant was sentenced to ten years for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. After a review of the record and authorities, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions for the sale of methamphetamine. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

In June 2003, John E. Allen, Jr. ("the Petitioner") pleaded nolo contendere to one count of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery and received a six-year sentence. More than eight years later, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The State sought dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s claim for relief, and this appeal followed. The Petitioner’s sole argument on appeal is that our supreme court’s decision in Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010), should be applied retroactively. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Duane M. Coleman, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of second degree murder. He was sentenced to thirty-two years as a Range II, multiple offender. State v. Duane Coleman, No. M1998-00663-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 31858, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 18, 2000). He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction. Id. at *14. Petitioner also unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Duane Coleman v. State, No. M2008-02180-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2890676, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jul. 23, 2010). Petitioner subsequently filed a "Motion for Relief From Judgement" based upon Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, on March 5, 2012. In this motion, Petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated by the imposition of enhancement factors and the imposition of 100% release eligibility without being found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. His argument was based upon the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The habeas corpus court determined that the motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure was uncognizable and treated the motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court then summarily dismissed the petition. We have reviewed the record on appeal. We agree with the habeas corpus court’s determination that the motion should be treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Additionally, we conclude that prior case law has determined that a Blakely violation does not apply retroactively and renders a judgment voidable instead of void. See Timothy R. Bowles v. State, No. M2006-01685-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 1266594, at *2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 1, 2007) Therefore, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of the petition.

The Petitioner, Robert L. Conley, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his 2006 convictions for sale of less than one-half gram of cocaine, possession with the intent to sell or deliver one-half gram of cocaine, and possession with the intent to use drug paraphernalia and his effective fourteen-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by finding that his petition was barred by the statute of limitations and by dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Ronald McKnight, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated burglary. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years as a career offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

The defendant, Joseph R. Bledsoe, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order declaring him a Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender, claiming that the convictions used to support the designation were not valid. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellant, Charles Edward Wilbourn, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine for sale in a drug-free zone. On February 19, 2010, Appellant pled guilty in a negotiated plea to the charge and an eight-year sentence to be served at 100 percent. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. After appointment of counsel, an amended petition was filed. One of the issues raised was that trial counsel afforded Petitioner ineffective assistance of counsel because she did not adequately investigate whether the incident actually occurred in a drug-free non-school zone. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred with respect to the above issue. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction court did not err in denying the petition. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

This is an appeal by Elvira N. M. from an order terminating her parental rights to her two minor children, Estefani Y. M. and Vanessa N. M. The order terminating the appellant’s parental rights was entered on October 15, 2012. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until November 15, 2012, more than (30) days from the date of entry of the October 15, 2012 order. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Petitioner, Doris Nell Jones, was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to eighteen years in incarceration. On direct appeal, this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on an untimely notice of appeal and the absence of a motion for new trial in the record. State v. Doris Nell Jones, No. M2007-00791-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 544576, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 27, 2008), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. June 1, 2009). The supreme court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in State v. Byington, 284 S.W.3d 220 (Tenn. 2009). On remand, this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Doris Nell Jones, No. M2009-01102-CCA-RM-CD, 2009 WL 2633026, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 26, 2009) (not for citation), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Feb. 22, 2010). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court improperly denied relief. After a review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief because Petitioner has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she is entitled to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Donald Ragland, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends (1) that the post-conviction court erred by not forcing the Petitioner to testify at the post-conviction hearing; and (2) that the Petitioner received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because trial counsel withdrew a motion to suppress a photographic identification of the Petitioner. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant, Telly Romeras Robertson, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in October of 2008 for one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, and one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. In January of 2009, Appellant was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of ecstacy with the intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to prepare a controlled substance, one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and casual exchange of marijuana. Appellant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to sell ecstacy and possession with intent to deliver between .5 ounce and ten pounds of marijuana in exchange for sentences of ten years and two years, respectively. The sentences were to run consecutively to each other and to an eight-year sentence Appellant was already serving for conspiracy to commit money laundering, for a total effective sentence of twenty years. At a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied an alternative sentence. Appellant appeals. After a review of the record and authorities, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an alternative sentence where: (1) Appellant was sentenced to a Class B felony, rendering him ineligible for probation; (2) probation was denied in order to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense; and (3) Appellant was incarcerated at the time of sentencing, rendering him ineligible for a sentence of Community Corrections. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Appellant, Charles L. Williams, was indicted in October of 2003 for one count of rape of a child and two counts of rape. In November of 2005, the case proceeded to trial. Appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-two years in incarceration. Appellant appealed the convictions and sentence. See State v. Charles L. Williams, No. M2005-00836-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 3431920 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 29, 2006) ("Williams I"). On appeal, this Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. Id. at *1. On remand, Appellant was again found guilty of rape of a child and two counts of rape. This time, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of seventeen years, merging the two convictions for rape with the conviction for rape of a child. Appellant appeals his convictions after retrial, arguing: (1) that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment with prejudice because the State committed violations of Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to provide audible videotapes of interviews with Appellant and the victim until three days into the second trial; (2) that the trial court failed to follow the mandate of this Court with respect to expert testimony; (3) that the trial court permitted improper testimony of experts; and (4) that the remedy for the trial court’s errors is a dismissal of the indictment. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the State did not commit a Brady violation where the information in the videotapes was not material; Agent Johnson’s testimony was not in contravention of this Court’s opinion on direct appeal; and the expert testimony elicited at trial was based on information actually perceived by the expert in his examination of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.