Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

The Defendant, Stephen Jacob McKinney, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, in exchange for an eightyear sentence with the method and manner of service to be left to the trial court’s determination. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court concluded that the Defendant was ineligible for probation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40- 35-303(a), which includes vehicular homicide by intoxication as one of the conviction offenses for which probation is not available. The trial court, therefore, sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Department of Correction at thirty percent release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not construing Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-303(a) in conjunction with Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-213(b)(2)(B), which provides that a defendant convicted of a first offense vehicular homicide by intoxication must serve a mandatory minimum sentence of forty-eight hours of incarceration before release from confinement on probation. The Defendant contends that the statutes are not in conflict if the release from confinement in the vehicular homicide statute is interpreted as release on parole. Based on our review, we conclude that the clearly worded intent of the legislature, as expressed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-303(a), was to remove vehicular homicide by intoxication as an offense for which probation is available. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jessica R. Adkins, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her conviction and resulting life sentence for felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child neglect. The Petitioner’s conviction was based on her failure to seek medical treatment for her two-month-old daughter, who sustained blunt force trauma while in the care of the child’s father, Russell Dean Long, who was tried with the Petitioner. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that she received effective assistance of trial counsel. The State argues that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and the Petitioner “made no efforts to show that she complied with the requirements of Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 28 § 2(G) by delivering her pro se petition to the appropriate prison official within the time fixed for filing.” Because the post-conviction court treated the petition as timely from the outset of the hearing, thereby preempting any proof the Petitioner may have presented to show that she delivered her petition to the appropriate prison official for mailing within the time for filing of the petition, we remand to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness of the petition.

The Defendant, Timothy Prink, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he challenged his fifteen-year sentence resulting from his attempted first degree murder conviction and his four life sentences resulting from four first degree murder convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Jim George Conaser, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class C felony, for which he is serving a twelve-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. See T.C.A. § 39-13- 102(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Supp. 2017) (subsequently amended). On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Jermaine Elvey Crawford, appeals from the revocation of his probationary sentences in Carroll County Circuit Court case 14-CR-115 and Henry County Circuit Court case 15793. By agreement between the parties, a combined hearing was held on the probation violation warrants in both cases. Defendant asserts that there was no substantial evidence that he violated his probation. Based on the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.

The defendant, Timothy M. Dawson, appeals his Loudon County Criminal Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, arguing that he is entitled to a new trial on grounds that he was incapacitated during the Momon colloquy. See Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999). Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner, Timothy Lee Armstrong, appeals from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and to sentence him because the indictment was not filed by the court clerk, that the judgments against him are void because they do not contain a filestamp date and that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition before he was allowed additional time to file a response to the State’s motion to dismiss. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Adam Dewayne Holmes, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of facilitation of possession with intent to sell heroin, facilitation of possession with intent to deliver heroin, possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone, possession with intent to deliver less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drugfree zone, and simple possession, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of what he alleges to be an unlawful vehicle search. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Timothy Howard Smartt, challenges the revocation of his community corrections placement on grounds that the sentence in case number 277012 expired before the issuance of the revocation warrant and that the court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of the total remaining sentences in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Montgomery County jury convicted Defendant, Deandre Marrece Ellis, of second degree murder, tampering with evidence, and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon with a predicate felony involving force or violence, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty-one years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to his conviction for tampering with evidence. He asserts that, when he placed the murder weapon in water inside a toilet tank in a friend’s apartment, he intended only to conceal his possession of the gun and that the State failed to prove that his intent was to hinder the police investigation by impairing the gun’s “verity, legibility, or availability as evidence.” Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence.

The petitioner, Ronald David Harris, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty pleas. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendants, Jalean Robert Williams and Markeil Linskey Williams, for one count of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of felony murder. Per a negotiated plea agreement, the defendants pled guilty to one count of second-degree murder for which they each received a sentence of thirty years to be served at 100%. The defendants also agreed to have the trial court determine whether their sentence in the instant matter would be served concurrently or consecutively to a sentence of life in prison plus fourteen years they were currently serving in Case No. 2017- A-296. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive terms. On appeal, the defendants contend the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive terms. After a thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.