APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Willie E. Spencer, appeals as of right from his guilty-pleaded convictions for three counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a maximum in-range sentence. Following our review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Jeffery Lynn Sanders, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his probation. On appeal, he alleges that (1) various procedural errors attended his revocation hearing, (2) no substantial evidence existed to support the finding of a violation of probation, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement.1 After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Billy Norman Forte, appeals from his jury conviction for second degree murder and his resulting twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s Ferguson remedy due to the State’s destruction of the recording of the Defendant’s 911 call; (2) the trial court’s ruling allowing the State to introduce evidence of the Defendant’s 1996 conviction for domestic assault against his ex-wife because the Defendant had opened the door to such evidence during his direct examination testimony; and (3) the trial court’s ruling prohibiting the Defendant from introducing certain evidence of the victim’s criminal history. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2013, a Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Demarcus Keyon Cole, of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a life sentence. The Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and this court affirmed his convictions. State v. Cole, No. W2013-02850-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 2859196 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2015). The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and multiple petitions for writ of error coram nobis, which alleged the discovery of various forms of new evidence. Cole v. State, No. W2024-00697-CCA-R3-ECN, 2025 WL 884073 (Tenn. Crim. App., March 21, 2025). The Petitioner filed two more petitions for error coram nobis, both of which were denied by the coram nobis court and which have been consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. The Petitioner also filed a motion to recuse, which was not heard by the coram nobis court. The Petitioner appeals, arguing that the coram nobis court erred by denying relief and by failing to rule on the motion to recuse. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in case number C-24-132. In case number C-24-151, the coram nobis court did not rule on the Petitioner’s motion to recuse, and accordingly, we remand the case to the coram nobis court for a ruling on the Petitioner’s motion.

Defendant, Love T. Anderson, was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of one count of aggravated child abuse, one count of aggravated child neglect, and two counts of aggravated child endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective fifteen-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Defendant, Kevin R. Newman, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions
of aggravated burglary and vandalism of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than
$2,500, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting certain testimony, by refusing to
declare a mistrial, and by providing a jury instruction on flight. He also challenges the
sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Upon review, we find no error and, accordingly,
affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the Defendant, Forrest Durham, pleaded guilty to six counts of aggravated statutory rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an agreed-upon six-year sentence, suspended to supervised probation. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion and by requiring him to register as a sex offender. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Markhayle Jackson, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his second motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his agreed-upon sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is an illegal, indeterminate sentence for his conviction of first degree murder. He also contends that he should be permitted the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court violated Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) by failing to ensure his guilty plea was both voluntary and intelligent. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Elijah Garrison, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) argue to the jury that an eyewitness’s testimony was unreliable because the eyewitness’s initial statements to police were “essentially coerced” and (2) failing to present and argue to the jury additional evidence that, in his view, contradicted the State’s proof. After review, we affirm.

David Fletcher, Petitioner, was convicted of aggravated burglary, first degree murder, and felony murder for his role in a gang-related shooting. He was sentenced to life plus ten years. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Fletcher, No M2018-01293-CCA-R3-CD, 2020 WL 995795, at *26 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2020), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner filed an untimely pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely. On appeal, Petitioner complains that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition as untimely and that the post-conviction court erred in denying Petitioner a continuance. After a review, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

Petitioner, Quaddariontae Burnom, appeals the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his 2022 guilty-pleaded conviction for second degree murder, for which he is serving an agreed twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to adequately explain to him the significance of our supreme court’s decision in State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2022), before he entered his plea. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Thomas Mack Arnold, appeals as of right from his conviction for first degree
premeditated murder, for which he is serving a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant
contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the prosecutor
made improper statements during the State’s rebuttal argument such that a mistrial was
necessary. After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable case law, we affirm.

In 2014, a Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant, Jamie Paul Click, of alternate
counts of selling or delivering one-half gram of heroin within 1,000 feet of a public
elementary school, Class A felonies, in addition to other offenses. The trial court merged
the two drug-free zone convictions and sentenced the Defendant to forty years as a Range
II, multiple offender with mandatory one-hundred percent service of the minimum sentence
in the range. In 2022, following amendments to the Drug-Free Zone Act, the Defendant
filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section
39-17-432(h), which the trial court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The
Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court’s ruling was a plain and palpable abuse of
discretion. Upon our review of the oral arguments, applicable law, and the briefs of the
parties, we deny the Defendant’s request for a writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment of
the trial court.

Petitioner, Leon Denton, was convicted of three counts of aggravated rape, one count of facilitation of aggravated rape, and one count of facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of fifteen years’ confinement. He subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Shelby County Criminal Court. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals that dismissal. After careful review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner’s notice of appeal is untimely. Moreover, Petitioner offers no reasons why the interest of justice would support a waiver of the filing deadline. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

In 2015, a Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Jamie Paul Click, of conspiracy to
possess with the intent to sell or deliver 150 grams or more of heroin in a drug-free zone,
a Class A felony. Following amendments to the Drug-Free Zone Act, the Defendant, in
2022, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h), seeking
resentencing of his Range II sentence of twenty-five years, which included a mandatory
minimum service requirement. The trial court found that it could not resentence the
Defendant to a lower release eligibility because such was not authorized by the statutory
language and denied the motion. We grant certiorari to vacate the trial court’s order and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner, Stanley Jefferson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the taking of Petitioner’s DNA. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Dylan Ray Thompson, was convicted by a Fayette County jury of first degree premeditated murder, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus eight years. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support each of his convictions and that the trial court erred in aligning his sentences consecutively. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Nearly twenty-three and a half years ago, Phillip Mullins, Petitioner, was convicted of felony murder, second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to life without parole. State v. Mullins, No. M2002-02977-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 23021402, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 29, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 1, 2004). The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief and habeas corpus relief were unsuccessful. See Mullins v. Lindamood, No. M2017-00139-CCA-R3-HC, 2017 WL 3332269, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017); Mullins v. State, No. M2008-00332-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 5272573, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 19, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2009). Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for DNA post-conviction relief, a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and a petition for habeas corpus relief. Following several hearings, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the post-conviction court erred by denying his request for DNA analysis of the evidence; (2) the post-conviction court improperly denied his request for expert funding; (3) the post-conviction court improperly determined his petition for error coram nobis relief was untimely; and (4) the post-conviction court improperly determined his habeas claims were without merit or previously litigated. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Philip Cavitt, appeals as of right from his jury conviction for aggravated sexual battery, for which he was sentenced as a Range II offender to twenty years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm.

Petitioner, Tommy Gayden, filed a single pro se pleading titled “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, Motion for Plain Error Review, and Petition for Extraordinary Writ on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.” The trial court summarily denied the motion to correct illegal sentence portion of the pleading for failure to state a colorable claim under Rule 36.1. Treating the two remaining claims as a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings, the trial court summarily denied the claims because they did not satisfy any of the criteria to reopen a post-conviction proceeding, they were previously waived, and they were raised outside the one-year post-conviction statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of all claims.

A Fayette County jury convicted the Defendant, Roy Garrens, Jr., of especially aggravated kidnapping of a child under thirteen, aggravated assault by strangulation, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping by the possession or threat of the use of a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support one of his aggravated kidnapping convictions. He also asserts that the trial court erred by (1) failing to merge convictions representing alternative theories of especially aggravated kidnapping; and (2) sentencing the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender. Upon our review, we agree with the parties that the Defendant’s kidnapping convictions in Counts 2 and 3 should be merged, and we respectfully remand these counts for entry of corrected judgments noting the merger. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Joseph George Schenck, appeals the trial court’s summary denial and dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence is illegal because he did not sign the circuit court judgment forms and it was neither explained to him nor announced on the record that he was required to serve 75% of his sentence before he was eligible for work release, furlough, trusty status, or rehabilitative programs. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Robert L. Hall, Jr., of one count of
possession of cocaine with the intent to manufacture, sell or deliver, two counts of
possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, two counts of
unlawful possession of a weapon, and one count of criminal trespass. The trial court
ordered an effective thirty-two-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction.
On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions for felony possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm during the
commission of a dangerous felony. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Jullion Fain Culps, appeals from the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing on his effective nine-year sentence. The Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the Defendant to serve his sentence on probation, given his age, employment status, and his desire to care for his child. The State asserts that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a sentence of confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Shane Scott Caywood, pleaded guilty to the sale or delivery of 0.5 grams
or more of methamphetamine, a Class B felony, felony possession of drug paraphernalia,
a Class E felony, and several misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III
Persistent Offender for the Class B felony and as a Range III Career Offender for the Class
E felony and ordered concurrent sentences for an effective total of twenty-five years. On
appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for
community corrections. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.