APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Wayne Sellers, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated rape. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged in the indictment. As a result, he was sentenced to twenty-three years as a Range I, standard offender and ordered to serve 100% of the sentence as an aggravated rapist. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of photographs of the victim’s genitalia at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Shawn Hatcher, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for not putting on expert proof to support his defense theory of diminished capacity and that the post-conviction court erred by relying on Denton v. State and Black v. State to deny his petition on the basis that he failed to present the expert witness’ proposed trial testimony at the evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Petitioner, Richard Lowell Blanchard, II, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief from nine misdemeanor convictions spread across four separate indictments for which he received four consecutive sentences of 11 months 29 days. The habeas corpus court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The petitioner, Ronald Shipley, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that illegality in his sentence for his conviction of rape of a child renders the judgment void. Discerning no error, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

In this appeal pursuant to Rule 37 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant, Christopher Brian Darnell, appeals two certified questions of law that arose from the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained via wiretapping:  (1) whether the State provided the defendant with timely and adequate notice that his cellular telephone communications had been intercepted by law enforcement officers and (2) whether the State failed to show the required necessity in its application to monitor the defendant’s telephone communications.  Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, David Andrew Oliver, of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession to police and by limiting his cross-examination of the victim about her prior inconsistent statements. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jarvis Taylor, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery in Shelby County. His convictions and effective life sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Jarvis Taylor v. State, W2005-01966-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242096, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct 30, 2006). In January 2014, over seven years after Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on appeal, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely. Petitioner appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We determine that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing where there were no grounds upon which to toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Marcus Puckett, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence (“DUI”) and DUI per se. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401. The trial court merged the two charges, and the Defendant was sentenced to eleven months twenty-nine days, with all but seven days suspended, to be followed by supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant makes the following arguments: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of his blood-alcohol level based on an illegal search and seizure; (2) that the trial court erred in concluding that the State met its burden in proving compliance with State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (1992), and thus, should not have allowed the testing officer to testify regarding the results of his breath-alcohol test; and (3) that his constitutional rights were violated because the trial court failed to conduct a hearing pursuant to Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999), following his decision not to testify at trial. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress based on an illegal search and seizure. We further hold that the trial court improperly concluded that the State complied with the Sensing requirements, and we therefore reverse the Defendant’s conviction and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Finally, although we conclude that the trial court’s failure to conduct a Momon hearing was plain error, we hold that such error does not necessitate further action from the trial court at this time because we have ordered a new trial on other grounds.

The Petitioner, Demond Hughlett, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain a determination from a medical expert or the court regarding his competency to stand trial and in failing to inform him of his right to file a motion to reduce his sentence or to appeal his sentence. The Petitioner also argues that counsel’s errors rendered his guilty plea involuntary and unknowing. Upon review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Defendant-Appellant, Silio Hilerio-Alfaro, was convicted as charged by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, one count of possession of .5 grams of more of cocaine with the intent to deliver, and one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court merged the delivery count with the sale count and imposed an effective sentence of eleven years. On appeal, the Defendant-Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions. Upon review, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and vacate the Defendant-Appellant’s convictions.

Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. She argues that the trial court erred in holding that clear and convincing evidence established that she engaged in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to her incarceration and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We have determined that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support both of the trial court’s findings. We affirm.

The appellant, Atosha Dominique Moore, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to two counts of aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, he challenges the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This suit arises as a result of a contract to install a roof on a commercial building. The building’s owner argued that the roof has leaked since its installation and that the roofer would not or could not satisfactorily repair it. The roofer asserted that the roof had experienced some leaks but that all had been repaired. The roofer alleged that it had performed according to the contract and sued for total payment. The owner of the building alleged, inter alia, that the roofer breached the contract by failing to provide adequate materials and proper workmanship and filed a counter-complaint. The trial court issued its ruling in favor of the building owner on the counter-complaint and awarded $220,374.96 in damages. The court dismissed the roofer’s suit. The court also dismissed the building owner’s other claims against the roofer for deceptive business practices and for filing an improper lien. Both sides appeal. We affirm.

In this construction contract dispute, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant general contractor as to all of the plaintiff subcontractor’s tort claims. The parties proceeded to trial on the remaining issues and judgment was awarded in favor of the subcontractor. Both parties raise numerous issues on appeal. Because we conclude that the trial court applied an improper standard in granting summary judgment, we vacate the order of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor. In addition, because the subcontractor’s tort claims may alter the remaining issues in this case, we decline to consider the remaining issues raised by the parties. Vacated and remanded.

The Petitioner, Marty Joe Kelley, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for five counts of rape of a child, three counts of aggravated sexual battery, nine counts of rape without consent, eighteen counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor and resulting effective sentence of thirty-six years to be served at 100%.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.  Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Caronna, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He also argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, including prior acts of financial fraud; bad acts relating to the victim’s mother; an extramarital affair; and the victim’s statements concerning the closing on a new house. After a thorough review, we discern no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Eric T. Gilbert, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his five-year sentence in confinement.  Discerning no error, we affirm

Petitioner, Travis F. Chapman, pled guilty to attempted second degree murder and was sentenced to twelve years in incarceration as a Range I, Standard Offender. Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary. The postconviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Steve Carl King, appeals the Giles County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder and resulting twenty-two-year sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner raises numerous claims regarding his receiving the ineffective assistance of counsel.  Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, James E. Hurd, appeals as of right from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain certain discovery materials, failing to adequately communicate with him, and failing to interview and call several character witnesses at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this procedurally complex case, a Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Terry Norris, of second degree murder in 1999, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-one years of incarceration. After several proceedings and filings, discussed in detail below, the U.S. Sixth Circuit granted the Defendant habeas corpus relief unless the State allowed the Defendant to reopen his original direct appeal and raise an issue regarding whether his confession should have been suppressed pursuant to County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The State allowed the Defendant to reopen his appeal. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his confession to police because he gave his confession after being held for more than forty-eight hours without a probable cause hearing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that we must address the issue before us for plain error. After conducting our plain error review, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief.

The Defendant, Jaleel Jovan Stovall, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, and the trial court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence at 100% for this conviction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt because he was mistaken as to the victim’s age. Deeming the evidence sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves an agreement between a distributor of medical tests and a healthcare consultant. The agreement provided that the consultant would earn a commission on sales of the medical test that he solicited on behalf of the distributor. After several months, the distributor terminated the agreement. The consultant filed a lawsuit against the distributor. The consultant alleged that the distributor breached its duty of good faith under the contract by terminating the agreement in order to avoid paying commissions and by failing to provide an adequate sales force to assist the consultant in making sales. The consultant alleged that the distributor breached a separate verbal contract for the development of marketing materials. The consultant also alleged that the distributor fraudulently misrepresented its intent to compensate the consultant for his efforts in soliciting orders for the medical test. The trial court dismissed the consultant’s fraud claim and granted summary judgment to the distributor on each of the remaining claims.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the consultant’s breach of good faith and fraud and misrepresentation claims. However, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the consultant’s claim that the distributor breached a separate verbal contract. We also vacate and remand the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees for reconsideration after issues related to the verbal contract are resolved.

This case concerns the termination of the mother’s parental rights. We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support terminating the mother’s parental rights on the ground relied upon by the trial court. The record further supports the conclusion that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the findings of the trial court.

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent and severe child abuse, and found that termination of Mother’s rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.