APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Knox County Jury convicted Defendant, Tyler Christian, of two counts of carjacking and one count of driving on a revoked license. The trial court merged the carjacking convictions and imposed an effective sentence of sixteen years’ confinement as a Range II offender. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court’s decision to supplement the pattern jury instructions with definitions of “force” and “violence,” and the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for new trial. After review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Taivaun Marquise Mallory, appeals his Montgomery County Circuit Court conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received a sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress a firearm recovered after a traffic stop and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A jury convicted Defendant, Stanley William Havens, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or higher (DUI per se), and it found that this was Defendant’s third DUI offense for enhanced sentencing. The offenses were merged, and Defendant was assessed a fine and sentenced to serve 11 months and 29 days in confinement, with a release eligibility of 75%. Defendant appeals, challenging: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the redacted video of the traffic stop; (3) the trial court’s failure to excuse a juror for cause; (4) a statement during voir dire that he asserts constitutes prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) his sentence. We affirm and remand for entry of a corrected judgments in Counts 2 and 3.

Defendant, Rikiya Joy Parks, appeals her Hawkins County Criminal Court jury convictions for aggravated child neglect, making a false report, and child abuse, challenging the admission of photographs of the minor victim, the admission of what she claims was improper character evidence, the exclusion of printed screenshots of Facebook messages, the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, and the imposition of consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm.

Petitioner, Andrew Levi Jefferson, appeals the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions in Coffee County Circuit Court case numbers 40579, 42946, 43169, and 43688. Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance; possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver; possession of 0.5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver; and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, for which he is serving an effective twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to (1) investigate evidence tampering by a police officer; (2) file several motions to suppress; and (3) adequately explain the plea agreement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The pro se Petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the Weakley County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Petitioner, Robert Lee Adams, Jr., appeals the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his conviction of attempted second degree murder and resulting thirty-year sentence. On appeal, he claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal of his convictions. Based on our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

Petitioner, Michael Dewayne Wright, Jr., was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, and first degree premeditated murder, for which he is serving two consecutive life sentences. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon (1) trial counsel’s conflict of interest stemming from representing two other suspects at the same time he represented Petitioner; (2) trial counsel’s failure to compel the same two suspects to testify at trial; (3) trial counsel’s failure to consult or call as a witness a firearms expert; (4) trial counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate investigation and prepare for trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors. Petitioner also asserts that the trial court failed in its duty to inquire about trial counsel’s conflict of interest. Finally, Petitioner asserts that the trial court failed to adjudicate Petitioner’s request for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act (“the DNA Act”). Following a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

Petitioner, Tony Mar-Kee Mosley, appeals the Obion County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that Petitioner filed an untimely notice of appeal and the interest of justice does not warrant a waiver of the notice requirement. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as untimely.

The Defendant, Felix Mandiel Leach, pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to sell or to deliver a Schedule II controlled substance as a Range II, multiple offender and received a twelve-year sentence to be served on probation. The Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily denied. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the court erred in denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Anthony M. Patton, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, to correct a clerical mistake in the judgments entered against him. He asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to apply pretrial jail credit to the second of two consecutively imposed sentences, arguing that he is entitled to receive such credit on both sentences. He also argues that his plea agreement is void as a result. The State responds that the trial court correctly applied jail credits to Defendant’s first sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Jimmy Harold Clark, was convicted by a Cumberland County jury of one count of rape of a child under the age of thirteen. The jury imposed the maximum fine of $50,000, and the trial court imposed a forty-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress his statement and that his sentence was excessive. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2018, a Williamson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Dewayne Edward Harris, of joyriding, carjacking, and aggravated robbery accomplished with a deadly weapon, and the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve an effective sentence of thirty years of incarceration. The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and we affirmed the post-conviction court’s judgment. Harris v. State, No. M2023-00681- CCA-R3-PC, 2024 WL 4164998, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2024), Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application denied (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2025). The Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Robin Lee Teague, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor for possessing material that depicted a minor engaged in sexual activity, a B felony based on his possession of more than 100 images, and two counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for exchanging material that included a minor engaged in sexual activity, a Class C felony. The plea agreement contemplated the trial court determining the sentence, and it sentenced him to twelve years for the B felony and six years for each of the C felonies. The trial court then ordered that all the sentences run consecutively to each other for a total effective sentence of twenty-four years, to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentencing, in part because it used Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(10) to enhance his sentence, which he asserts is forbidden by the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. After review, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly applied 40-35-115(b)(10) to order consecutive sentences. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgments of conviction but remand the case for a new sentencing hearing during which the trial court will reconsider whether consecutive sentencing is appropriate.

The Defendant, William Goldsberry, Jr., appeals the Henderson County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the violation of probation warrant due to a violation of his speedy trial rights and by revoking his probation in full, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish he committed a non-technical violation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion on two grounds. First, although not addressed by the majority, I find the exceedingly late issuance of the November 19, 2024 violation of probation warrant to be problematic. A strong argument can be made that the November 19, 2024 warrant, which was issued more than twenty-two years after the Defendant’s sentence expired on June 23, 2002, and decades after the new criminal offenses in Oklahoma and California were allegedly committed, would violate the Defendant’s due process rights under the test for pre-accusatorial delay. Though perhaps not as strong, an argument can also be made that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the November 19, 2024 violation of probation warrant, which alleged the Oklahoma and California offenses, because this second warrant was issued more than twenty-two years after the Defendant’s probationary sentence expired on June 23, 2002. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311(a)(1) (stating that “[w]henever it comes to the attention of the trial judge that a defendant who has been released upon suspension of sentence has been guilty of a breach of the laws of this state or has violated the conditions of probation, the trial judge shall have the power to cause to be issued under the trial judge’s hand: . . . (A) A warrant for the arrest of the defendant as in any other criminal case; or (B) For a technical violation brought by a probation officer, and subject to the discretion of the judge, a criminal summons.”); see also State v. Moon, No. M2023-01192-CCA-R3-CD, 2025 WL 1672885, at *12 n.7 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 13, 2025) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 311(a) (reiterating that probation revocation proceedings “may only be commenced within the applicable probationary period”). Because the November 19, 2024 warrant was issued decades after the criminal offenses in Oklahoma and California and more than twenty-two years after the Defendant’s sentence expired, this court could have concluded either that this warrant violated the Defendant’s due process rights or that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over this matter.

The Defendant, Kristopher Pappas, was convicted after trial by jury of aggravated assault by causing serious bodily injury, as a lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court denied his request for judicial diversion and entered judgments for a total effective sentence of five years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because he acted in self-defense and that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. We ordered supplemental briefing to address whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that aggravated assault is a lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder. Following our review, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault and remand for a new trial on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter for that count. We affirm the judgment of conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and the denial of judicial diversion as to the remaining count.

Billy J. Hancock, Defendant, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and abuse of a corpse. State v. Hancock, No. M0212-02307-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 7006969, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 14, 2015). His convictions were affirmed on appeal. Defendant filed a pro se motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 on January 30, 2025, in which he argued that the trial court committed a clerical error by checking the “T.D.O.C.” box on the judgment form and by ordering his sentence to be served as a “100 percent violent offender.” The trial court denied the motion, finding that Defendant failed to state a colorable claim. Defendant appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Before the court is the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. The State argues that the trial court properly denied the Appellant’s motion for plain error review of his sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36, because no such pleading is contemplated by the rules of criminal procedure. The pro se Appellant has filed a response in opposition to the State’s motion.

Defendant, Jonathan Hall, pled guilty in two separate cases to one count of aggravated assault and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in exchange for dismissal of a related domestic violence charge and an effective eight-year sentence with the trial court to determine the manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of confinement, four years for the aggravated assault charge to be served at 100% and eight years for the possession of a firearm charge to be served at 85%. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request for a suspended sentence. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon application of the Defendant, Pejhman Ehsani,
for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. The State has filed
a response in opposition. The Defendant seeks review of the criminal court’s order denying
his motion to dismiss the charges against him in this case. Upon full consideration, the
application is denied for the reasons stated below.

Petitioner, Kentavis Antwon Jones, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erroneously dismissed the petition for not being in the proper form without giving him reasonable opportunity to correct the petition with the assistance of counsel. He also argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the negligence of his trial counsel. The State responds that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition as untimely and that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted Defendant, Justin David Whaley, of
vehicular homicide by intoxication, reckless driving, driving under the influence of an
intoxicant (“DUI”), reckless vehicular homicide, and multiple driving-related
misdemeanor offenses, and the trial court merged the convictions into one conviction for
vehicular homicide by intoxication and sentenced Defendant to nine years’ incarceration.
Defendant appealed, and while his direct appeal was pending, he filed a petition for writ of
error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. Following a hearing, the trial court
granted coram nobis relief in part, vacating Defendant’s convictions for vehicular homicide
by intoxication and DUI but denying relief as to Defendant’s remaining convictions. Both
Defendant and the State appealed the trial court’s coram nobis order, and this court
consolidated Defendant’s direct appeal with both parties’ appeals of the trial court’s coram
nobis order. On appeal, Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence for his
convictions for vehicular homicide and DUI; (2) the denial of his motion to suppress
evidence obtained by a search warrant for a blood draw; (3) the admission of the results of
the analysis of his blood sample and the retrograde extrapolation as unreliable; (4) the
admission of testimony of a Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”) employee
as improper lay opinion; (5) the trial court’s decision to allow the jury to visit the scene;
and (6) the jury instructions on mistake of fact and reckless vehicular homicide. Defendant
also contends that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial warrants relief and that the
trial court erred in failing to grant coram nobis relief for all his convictions. In its crossappeal,
the State asserts that the trial court erred by granting partial coram nobis relief.
Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting coram nobis relief for Defendant’s
convictions of vehicular homicide by intoxication and DUI, and we reinstate those
convictions. Because the trial court only imposed sentences for the vehicular homicide by
intoxication conviction, we remand for a sentencing hearing for the remaining convictions and the entry of corrected judgments reflecting separate sentences for each conviction. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Darrell Peterson, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed a life sentence plus twenty-five years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In 2022, the Petitioner, Keshon Ford, pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder in exchange for a sentence of ten years of incarceration. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his plea was not entered voluntarily. The habeas court entered an order dismissing the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the habeas corpus court erred when it denied his request for appointment of counsel and when it summarily dismissed his petition. We affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment.