APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, William, Henry Smith, Jr., appeals his Bedford County jury conviction for Driving while Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He also states that his six year sentence in the Department of Correction was excessive. Finding the evidence sufficient and the sentence proper, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
 

James G. Coons, II ("the petitioner") filed for post-conviction relief from his open plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of Second Degree Murder and received a maximum Range II sentence of 40 years in the Department of Correction. Specifically, he asserts that counsel did not investigate or prepare for trial properly or advise him properly as to the possibilities of sentencing. The petition was denied and this appeal followed. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court

The Appellant, Jerrico D. Graves, appeals as of right from the trial court’s revocation of his probation for Aggravated Assault. Although admitting to the violation, the appellant argues that ordering the original sentence of six years to be served in the Department of Correction was not ‘the right thing to do” because of his mental health issues. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of probation and the appellant's sentence to the Department of Correction.
 

Robert LaFever appeals the Trial Court’s order of July 12, 2012 dismissing his notice of will contest after finding and holding, inter alia, that the Last Will and Testament of John Leonard Burke had been admitted to probate in solemn form and could not be challenged in a later will contest. We affirm the Trial Court’s July 12, 2012 order.

Vincent Clifton (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, with no agreement as to his sentences. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty-five years. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to serve his thirty-five-year sentence consecutively to a previous sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. We remand the case solely for correction of a clerical error on one of the judgment orders.

The Defendant, Marlo Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and reckless homicide. Subsequently, the trial court merged the reckless homicide into the second degree murder conviction and imposed a sentence of forty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions; (2) the mutually exclusive nature of the verdicts and whether the offenses were properly merged; (3) the admission of prior inconsistent statements by a witness, who had no memory of making those statements at the time of trial, as substantive evidence; (4) the imposition of the maximum forty-year sentence in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Kenneth Miller, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine, delivery of 300 grams or more of cocaine, and possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
 

The Petitioner, Gerald Branden Fitzpatrick, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to eleven years in confinement to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal when the minor victim placed the date of the crime outside the dates alleged in the indictment; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify through anatomical drawings rather than verbal testimony, which permitted the State to lead the victim; and (4) the trial court erred by allowing two State witnesses to give hearsay testimony. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The Defendant-Appellant, Tolbert Cates Kail, was convicted by a Crockett County jury of two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony, sexual exploitation of a minor with fifty images or less, a Class D felony, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor, and assault, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Kail as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of twelve years at 100%. On appeal, Kail argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Eugene Spivey, appeals the Crockett County Circuit Court’s denial of post conviction relief from his conviction of second degree murder, a Class B felony. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he entered an involuntary and unknowing guilty plea. In the alternative, he argues the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963). Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Gabriella M. Dorado, pled guilty to attempted possession with intent to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective six-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea, claiming that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which constituted a “manifest injustice.” After a hearing, the trial court denied her motion. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial, claiming the trial court erred when it found that she had not proved that Counsel’s representation prejudiced her. After a thorough review of the applicable law and the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Timothy Clinger, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion for this court to affirm pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
 

Appellant’s claim for unemployment benefits was denied based upon a finding of work-related misconduct. Appellant sought review in the chancery court, which upheld the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. On appeal to this Court, Appellant claims that the chancery court erred in denying her request for a continuance and in affirming the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee without considering the evidence which purportedly would have been introduced had a continuance been allowed. We affirm the decision of the chancery court.

The petitioner, Terry Wayne Robinson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of one count of theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a multiple offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to interview witnesses and by failing to insist that the petitioner testify at trial. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The homeowners’ association of a residential subdivision in Brentwood,Tennessee seeks just compensation from the City of Brentwood for loss of property rights in a portion of the subdivision’s open space. The City acquired the property by purchasing it from the developers of the subdivision without the Association’s knowledge. The Declaration of Protection Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the subdivision, which the developers drafted and of which the City was on notice, states that the developers “will deed the completed Open Space on the subject Properties to the Association free and clear of any encumbrances before the first Lot is conveyed to a Lot Owner.” Although they sold the first individual lot in 2001, the developers did not convey any of the open space to the homeowners’ association until after the sale to the City. This action by the homeowners’ association ensued. The trial court summarily dismissed the action on the City’s motion, finding the homeowners’ association did not own a compensable property right in the Open Space when it was sold to the City. We have determined the homeowner’s association had an equitable interest in the Open Space pursuant to the Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions when it was sold to the City; therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, Collier Smith, pled guilty to statutory rape, a Class E felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to one year, suspended to two years probation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his complaint against the prison’s medical staff for failure to properly diagnose and treat him. The trial court determined that Appellant prisoner’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which was not tolled by operation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s findings concerning his status as an indigent person. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and remand.

Petitioner pro se appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The petitioner contends that his conviction for first degree (felony) murder is void because of a defect in his indictment. This issue was previously adjudicated in one of the petitioner’s prior petitions for habeas corpus, and this court is bound by the result reached in the prior case. The judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

Mother appeals the trial court’s order naming Father primary residential parent and setting child support. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

The petitioner, John Williams, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving an effective sentence of 161 years following his convictions for five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and three counts of aggravated robbery. In this appeal, he contends that his petition for relief was erroneously denied because his right to a public trial was violated and that trial counsel was ineffective in failing object to or raise that violation. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of the post-conviction petition.

Plaintiffs, former part-time Shelby County employees, claim they were wrongfully excluded from Shelby County’s retirement plan. The trial court dismissed all claims based on the six year limitations period applicable to contract actions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and received a life sentence. In his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, he alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that a discharged alternate juror improperly communicated with the jury foreman; and that the trial court erred by failing to exclude from the evidence certain photographs and recordings and by failing to provide a special jury instruction on diminished capacity. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. This Court granted permission to appeal to address whether the communication by the alternate juror to the foreman entitled the defendant to a new trial. Because the State successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice that accompanies an improper communication with a juror, we find no error and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
 

The petitioner, Anthony Leroy Harris, appeals the summary denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is currently serving an effective ninety-year sentence in the Department of Correction following convictions for aggravated kidnapping and armed robbery. In his petition, he alleges he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because his sentences are disproportionate to the severity of the offenses he committed. On appeal, he contends that the habeas corpus court erred in its denial because proportionality of a sentence has been recognized as a habeas corpus claim in the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Following review of the record, we conclude no viable habeas corpus claim was presented and affirm the denial of the petition.

Appellant, Jackie Ray Elkins, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver not less than one-half of an ounce but not more than ten pounds of marijuana in a drug-free zone. This charge was the result of a traffic stop in Shelby Bottoms in Nashville, Tennessee and the subsequent search of the vehicle in which Appellant was travelling. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the proceeds of the search. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted Appellant as charged. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion and asks this Court to review his complaint under the plain error rule. In addition, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that plain error review is not necessary to do substantial justice and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

In 1987, the Petitioner, James E. Williams, was convicted of armed robbery, assault with intent to commit first degree murder, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus seventy-five years. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentence on appeal. State v. James E. Williams, No. 88-172-III, 1988 WL 138843, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 30, 1988), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 3, 1989). During the next sixteen years, the Petitioner filed two petitions for post-conviction relief and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, all of which were denied by the post-conviction court. The Petitioner appealed each denial separately, and this Court affirmed the trial court each time. In 2012, the Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of error coram nobis in which he presented multiple allegations. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that the coram nobis court erred when it dismissed his petition without a hearing, contending that he presented in his petition newly discovered evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment.