APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Jarrett Inman, pled guilty in the Roane County Criminal Court to rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to seventeen years at 100% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his petition for writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence of the victim’s recantation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Yovonda Sherith Chambers, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This is a health care liability action wherein the trial by jury resulted in a judgment for the Defendant, Dr. Timothy Renfree. Plaintiffs, Larry and Dinnie Burchfield, filed this lawsuit against Dr. Renfree alleging that he negligently performed surgery on Mr. Burchfield’s right arm and caused nerve damage. After the jury returned its verdict in favor of Dr. Renfree, the Burchfields filed post-trial motions seeking relief from the judgment and alleging numerous errors in the administration of the trial. The trial court denied the post-trial motions and affirmed the jury’s verdict as thirteenth juror. The Burchfields appealed. We vacate the jury’s verdict, finding reversible error in the administration of the trial, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Anthony Whited, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he presented a colorable claim for relief and that he should, therefore, have been afforded the assistance of post-conviction counsel and an evidentiary hearing. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for the appointment of post-conviction counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

The Petitioner, Nicholas Overbay, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief for his conviction for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, William Lanier, of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant asserts: (1) that he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Anthony Mullins to testify as a blood spatter expert; (4) that the trial court erred in admitting blood spatter evidence that was insufficiently authenticated; (5) that the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of witnesses; (6) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its questioning of witnesses and closing argument; and (7) that the cumulative effect of the errors warrants a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James Earl Evans (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced to ten years’ probation. Upon the filing of a probation revocation warrant, the Defendant was taken into custody, and a revocation hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence of ten years’ incarceration. The Defendant has appealed the trial court’s ruling, asserting that the trial court erred in sentencing him to his original sentence in confinement. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The trial court awarded an employee 85% permanent partial disability to both ears. The employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the employee’s claim was not barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(b). We affirm the trial court’s determination that the employee’s claim was timely filed.

The petitioner, Broderick Joseph Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In 2011, the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tennessee’s voting procedures to provide for the use of photographic identification in elections. The General Assembly amended these procedures in 20122 and again in 2013.3 I concur with the Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of these procedures as they stood in 2012. I write separately, however, to address the threshold matter of the standard of review that should be used to address the constitutionality of these amendments.

Defendant, Dustin Marshall Goforth, was serving a suspended eight-year sentence on supervised probation. Violation of probation warrants were filed, and his suspended sentence was revoked after an evidentiary hearing. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served by incarceration in the Department of Correction. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion for the judge to recuse himself in this case prior to the evidentiary hearing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

St. Thomas Hospital suspended a surgeon’s hospital privileges and restored them less than three months later, as part of a settlement in which the doctor also waived a “fair hearing,” which was the next step in the hospital’s procedures. The surgeon subsequently sued the hospital, contending that it had not properly followed its own bylaws in regard to the suspension of his privileges and that he was therefore entitled to damages for breach of contract, defamation of character, and tortious interference with business relations. The hospital denied that it had violated any of its bylaws and asserted that it was entitled to immunity for its actions under the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 and the Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital. Because the surgeon failed to show that the hospital did not follow its bylaws, because of his settlement and waiver of a fair hearing, the hospital was entitled to the immunity granted to the peer review process. We affirm.

Defendant, Lavario Devon Kibble, entered guilty pleas to reckless endangerment and aggravated assault pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Under the agreement he received consecutive sentences of one year for reckless endangerment and four years for aggravated assault. The manner of service of the effective sentence of five years was left to determination by the trial court after a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served totally by incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court should have ordered an alternative sentence of either split confinement or periodic confinement. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Darrell Carpenter, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for second degree murder in November of 2007. At the conclusion of a jury trial, he was convicted of the offense as charged in the indictment and sentenced to twenty years in incarceration as a violent offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant did not seek an appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he sought a delayed appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-113. The trial court granted the motion for delayed appeal. In this Court, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence resulting in his second degree murder conviction. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Pursuant to this court’s opinion in Stephen Anthony Scott v. State, No. M2010-00448-CCA-R3-PC, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 632, at *5 (Nashville, Aug. 16, 2011), the Montgomery County Circuit Court resentenced the appellant, Stephen Anthony Scott, to the presumptive minimum sentence in the range for his convictions of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and attempted robbery. Six months later, the trial court found the appellant to be an especially mitigated offender and further reduced his sentences for count 3, especially aggravated kidnapping, and count 4, kidnapping, by ten percent. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by not allowing him to be sentenced pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, that the trial court erred by failing to sentence him as an especially mitigated offender for all of the offenses, and that his sentences violate Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to classify the appellant as an especially mitigated offender and could not reduce his sentences by ten percent. Therefore, the case is remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of his previous sentences for counts 3 and 4. Regarding the issues raised on appeal, we conclude that the appellant is not entitled to relief and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, a state prison inmate, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for declaratory order, in which he alleged that the respondents, Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) and Morgan County Correctional Complex (“MCCX”), denied his due process rights and violated TDOC policies when he was placed on administrative segregation following a disciplinary hearing. The trial court found that the petitioner had failed to pay court costs from a previously filed action and dismissed his petition pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-812 (2010). Discerning no error, we affirm.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Dameon Williams, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years in the county workhouse. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting an autopsy photograph of the victim’s skull and that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Kevin Bell, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probationary sentence and challenges the imposition of the original sentence to be served in confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Felton Neville Jackson, was indicted by a Wilson County grand jury for especially aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. He was convicted of both charges, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years and six years, respectively. He now appeals his convictions and sentences on the following grounds: (1) the trial court erred by allowing a police officer to offer an allegedly testimonial statement attributed to the victim; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) his sentences are excessive. Following our review, we discern no error and affirm appellant’s convictions. However, we vacate the judgments in this case and remand this cause for entry of a single judgment of conviction noting merger of the aggravated assault conviction into the especially aggravated robbery conviction.

The Petitioner, Jeremy Keeton, appeals as of right from the Wayne County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to secure the appearance of several witnesses at his trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In May of 2011, the General Assembly enacted a law providing, with certain exceptions, that all citizens who appear in person to vote must present photographic proof of their identity. The statute authorized a variety of acceptable forms of identification, one of which was a valid photographic identification card issued by an entity of the State of Tennessee. Prior to the August 2012 primary election, the City of Memphis Public Library issued photographic identification cards to its patrons. When two Shelby County residents attempted to vote in the primary using photographic library cards as means of identification, however, election officials declined to accept the cards as the requisite proof. The two residents and the City of Memphis filed a declaratory judgment action against the Secretary of State, the State Coordinator of Elections, and the Attorney General, arguing that the photographic identification requirement violated constitutional protections and that the City of Memphis qualified as an entity of the state authorized to issue valid photographic identification cards through its public library. The trial court denied relief on all counts, ruling first that the plaintiffs lacked standing and holding in the alternative that the photographic identification requirement did not violate the state constitution and that the City of Memphis did not qualify as an entity of the state. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that each plaintiff had standing to sue and that photographic identification cards issued by a municipal library complied with the statute for voting purposes, but also concluding that the photographic identification requirement did not violate constitutional principles. Following the grant of an application for permission to appeal, briefing, and oral argument, the General Assembly enacted amendments to the statute which, among other things, precluded the use of photographic identification cards issued by municipalities or their libraries for voting purposes. In light of these recent amendments, we hold that each issue in this appeal that pertains to the validity of the Memphis Public Library cards as photographic identification is now moot. We further hold that the City of Memphis lacks standing, and, although the two residents of Shelby County have standing to file a declaratory judgment action, the photographic identification requirement, both on its face and as applied in this instance, meets constitutional scrutiny. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the issue of constitutionality.

The petitioner, Clarence Dewayne Hayes, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the misconduct of the prosecutor. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Antoinette Hill, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis. She asserts that newly discovered evidence, namely an addiction to alcohol and pills by the trial court judge who presided over her trial for first degree premeditated murder, warrants a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The Defendant, William Albert Kelly, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for perjury and attempted failure to report as a sex offender and ordering his effective two-year, eleven-month, and twenty-nine-day sentence into execution. The Defendant contends that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by revoking his probation and (2) illegally recommended that he not be eligible for release after serving thirty percent of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dante Devon Omar Truitt, pled guilty to explosive weapon possession with an agreed eight-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve the eight-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment.