APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Mitchell Lee Davis, pleaded guilty to burglary, misdemeanor theft, and sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, and the trial court entered the agreed sentence of five years, 180 days of which were to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. The Defendant's probation officer subsequently filed an affidavit alleging a probation violation. The trial court issued a warrant, and the parties agreed that the Defendant should serve 120 more days followed by reinstatement to probation. The trial court rejected the agreement, revoked the Defendant's probation, and ordered him to confinement. The Defendant did not appeal but then filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, contending that the trial court improperly considered his lengthy criminal history when it revoked his probation. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion. On appeal, the Defendant contends that, after the trial court rejected the parties' agreement for the probation violation, the trial court violated his due process rights by not holding a hearing to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the probation violation. He further contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation because it based its decision on the Defendant's previous criminal history. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Pro se petitioner, Harold McDuffie, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

In 1998, a jury convicted the Defendant, Billy Locke, for DUI, third offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days, 160 days of which was to be served in confinement with the remainder to be served on probation. In 1999, the Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary, evading arrest, assault, and possession of burglary tools, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of three years to run consecutively with any sentence he received for violating his probation for the DUI conviction. Fifteen years later, in January 2015, the Defendant filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the trial court was required to align his sentences consecutively because he was on probation and thus still “serving” his sentence for the DUI conviction when sentenced for the burglary-related convictions. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion, and he appealed to this Court. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Appellant, Marcus Traveno Cox, Jr., stands convicted (after merger of duplicate counts) of possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine, possession with intent to sell more than one-half ounce but less than ten pounds of marijuana, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance (Lortab), possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony.  The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, appellant argues that the indictment and jury instructions for the possession of a firearm charge were fatally deficient and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Grady Joe Careathers, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for a probation sentence. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant was arrested for violating the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act, a charge to which he pleaded guilty. At the same time, he entered a guilty plea to violating his probation. Over the next five years, the Defendant admitted to violating his probation sentence on several occasions. At his fifth revocation hearing, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The Appellant, Marcus Zeron Jones, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1  The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.  Said motion is hereby granted.

This appeal involves the foreclosure sale of improved real property located in Erwin, Tennessee. The plaintiff lender filed a complaint seeking a foreclosure deficiency award in the amount of $53,489.59, plus interest and reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to the promissory note. The defendant debtor asserted as an affirmative defense that the lender had purchased the property during a foreclosure sale for a sum materially less than the fair market value. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the fair market value of the property was $158,900.00, an amount the lender had purportedly been offered by an employment relocation company prior to the foreclosure sale. The lender had purchased the home at foreclosure for $95,000.00. Finding the foreclosure sale price to be materially less than the fair market value, the trial court ruled that the debtor had successfully overcome the statutory presumption, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 35-5-118, that a foreclosure sale price is equal to fair market value. The court entered a deficiency judgment in favor of the lender in the amount of $9,659.62. The lender appeals. Discerning no reversible error concerning the award, we affirm. However, having determined that the promissory note provided for reasonable attorney's fees to the lender in the event of default, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to be awarded for work performed during trial.

A Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jerry Crawford, Jr., of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty years in prison. The Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence, and this Court affirmed the trial court's judgments. See State v. Jerry Crawford, Jr., No. W2012-02729-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 296014, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 28, 2014), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. In 2015, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court appointed counsel who filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief alleging that the Petitioner had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred when it denied his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

In 2000, the Petitioner, Charles R. Blackstock, pleaded guilty to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to three consecutive twenty-five year sentences. This Court affirmed the consecutive sentencing on appeal, but modified the total effective sentence to seventy-one years. State v. Charles R. Blackstock, No. E2000-01546-R3-CD, 2001 WL 969036, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug. 27, 2001), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. In 2013, the Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, which was denied. The Petitioner appealed, and this Court affirmed. Charles R. Blackstock v. State, No. E2013-01173-CCA-R3-HC, 2014 WL 1092812, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 19, 2014), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. In 2015, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilty plea hearing and also during the habeas corpus proceeding. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his counsel during the habeas corpus proceeding was ineffective. He further contends that the post-conviction court erred when it did not “mention[] the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” After a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

The Petitioner, Loice E. Pittman, appeals as of right from the Coffee County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing his petition for having been untimely filed.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on the four minor children—Joseph F., Johnathon S., Sarah S., and Larry S. (“the Children”)—of the respondent mother, Elizabeth F. (“Mother”). In January 2011, Mother voluntarily placed all four Children in the custody of Ernest S., the biological father of the younger three children. Ernest S. passed away on June 27, 2011, while Mother was living in Oregon. Upon motion of Ernest S.'s minister and family friend, Betty Shirley, the Grainger County Juvenile Court granted temporary custody of the Children to Ms. Shirley on June 28, 2011. Ms. Shirley gave physical custody of the Children to the petitioners on July 8, 2011. The petitioners filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and to adopt the Children on that same day. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of Mother upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother (1) had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to provide financial support, (2) was guilty of severe abuse, and (3) was mentally incompetent to care for the Children. The court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the Children's best interest. Mother has appealed. We affirm the trial court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights in all respects.

The Petitioner, William Thomas Mayers, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Davidson County Criminal Court, alleging that his counsel was ineffective at trial and on appeal.  The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Thomas Neal McClean, was convicted upon his guilty pleas to robbery, a Class C felony; burglary, a Class E felony; and theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-401 (2014) (robbery), 39-14-402 (2014) (burglary), 39-14-103 (2014) (theft), 39-14-105(a)(1) (2014) (grading of theft). He received an effective ten-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. In this appeal, he contends he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Because his appeal is not upon any basis permitted by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b), we dismiss the appeal.

Christopher Hammack (“the Defendant”) was indicted for one count of initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine (Count 1), one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony (Count 2), and one count of convicted felon in possession of a firearm (Count 3).  The Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser included offense of facilitation of initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine in Count 1 and as charged in Count 2.  A judgment of conviction was entered by the trial court in Count 3.  On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions in Counts 1 and 2.  Upon review, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for Counts 1 and 2.  Additionally, we conclude that the Defendant did not effectively waive his right to a jury trial or enter a plea of guilty in Count 3.  The judgments of the trial court are reversed and the charges are dismissed.

This is a termination of employment case. Appellant Shelby County Board of Education appeals the trial court’s decision to reinstate a tenured teacher whose employment was terminated for inefficiency. The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of inefficiency. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s determination that Appellee, who was born in 1992, is an heir-at-law of the Decedent, who died intestate. Appellant argues that the Appellee, as a child born out of wedlock, was required to file a claim against decedent’s estate within the statutory period in order to inherit. However, the Decedent is listed on Appellee’s birth certificate. Under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 68-3-305(b) (1992), in order for his name to be listed on Appellee’s birth certificate, the decedent would have signed an “affidavit . . . acknowledging paternity.” With the enactment, in 1994, of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 27-7-113, such “affidavits” were deemed “voluntary acknowledgment[s] of paternity,” which constitute a “legal finding of paternity.” It is undisputed that the decedent’s estate consists only of real property. Because the inclusion of decedent’s name on Appellee’s birth certificate evinces the execution of a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity that constitutes a legal finding of paternity, Appellee’s portion of the estate vested, upon decedent’s death, in Appellee pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 31-2-103 and the laws of intestate succession, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 31-2-104. Affirmed and remanded. 

This is a divorce case. Wife appeals the trial court’s order concerning the division of property and award of various fees and expenses. Because the trial court did not enter an order on Wife’s motion for reimbursement of certain fees and expenses, the judgment of the trial court is not final and appealable as of right. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  

The Petitioner, Wesley Dawone Coleman, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court for Obion County. He was convicted of aggravated burglary, theft over $500, and evading arrest, and received an effective sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the cumulative effect of counsel’s errors denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Victor Clark (“the Petitioner”) was indicted for two counts of attempted second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous offense. After a jury trial, the Petitioner was acquitted of both counts of attempted second-degree murder but convicted of all other charges. In this post-conviction proceeding, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Paul Williams el, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief, challenging his conviction for a second or subsequent offense of driving on a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license. The habeas court summarily dismissed the Petition. On appeal, we conclude that the Petition failed to meet the procedural requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-107. Additionally, the Petitioner's claim is based on a complete misreading of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-50-504 and is without merit. The judgment of the habeas court is affirmed.

In December 2012, the Maury County Grand Jury indicted Brandon Waire (“the Defendant”) on three counts of sale of cocaine over .5 gram within a drug-free zone.  Following a trial, a jury convicted the Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective eight years’ incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant asserts that he is entitled to relief from his convictions because:  (1) the trial court erroneously denied the Defendant’s motion for mistrial after the State’s confidential informant testified that he had served prison time with the Defendant; (2) the Defendant’s right to a fair trial was violated when the State failed to preserve video evidence of statements made by the confidential informant in violation of State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999); (3) the trial court erred when it failed to exclude the State’s late-disclosed witness from testifying; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

An Anderson County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, David William Lowery, as charged of three counts of aggravated child abuse.  See T.C.A. § 39-15-402(a)(1) (Supp. 2007).  The trial court imposed concurrent twenty-five-year sentences with a release eligibility of one hundred percent for each count.  See id. § 40-35-501(i) (Supp. 2008).  Lowery’s sole issue on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions.  Upon review, we affirm Lowery’s convictions but remand the case for entry of corrected judgments in counts 1, 2, and 3 to reflect that he was charged with and convicted of three counts of aggravated child abuse and that these convictions are Class A felonies.    

Defendant, Jose Lemanuel Hall, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.  On appeal, he argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding his gang affiliation and gang rank; (3) that the trial court erred in admitting photographs; and (4) that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Reginald Rome, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis which alleged newly discovered evidence. The coram nobis court found that due process principles did not require tolling the statute of limitations and that Petitioner had failed to prove that he was without fault in failing to present this evidence at the proper time. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

An “affidavit of complaint” was issued against Lisa Odom for custodial interference. Deputies from the Claiborne County Sheriff's Office visited Ms. Odom for the purpose of taking custody of her child and returning her to Ms. Odom's ex-husband, Scott Odom. Ms. Odom objected to the removal of her child, and William Phipps, Ms. Odom's father, asked to see a warrant prior to the removal of the child. After a prolonged standoff, the deputies called Assistant District Attorney General Amanda Sammons, who explained over a speakerphone that a warrant was not necessary because there was a court order for Ms. Odom to return the child to Mr. Odom. During the course of the phone call, Ms. Odom overheard General Sammons use derogatory language when referring to her. Ms. Odom was ultimately arrested for custodial interference. Nearly a year later, Ms. Odom and Mr. Phipps (collectively the plaintiffs) filed a complaint against General Sammons alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. General Sammons filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.