APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Nathaniel Taylor, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition because (1) his petition was unjustly denied in light of established law and under color of law; (2) he should have been appointed counsel and granted an evidentiary hearing in order to present his case; and (3) his conviction was based on the use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal.

Defendant, Amanda Michelle Owen, appeals the eight-year sentence imposed for her Blount County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded conviction of theft of property valued at $60,000 or more but less than $250,000, a Class B felony, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence of full incarceration. Because the record reflects that the trial court made the appropriate findings and that those findings are supported by the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Defendant serve the entirety of her sentence in confinement, and, accordingly, we affirm.

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendant, Craig Kitt, for review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to reduce the amount of his pretrial bond. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes.

The Defendant, Caprice Lashon Peete, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court erred by not excusing a juror who failed to disclose that she knew one of the State’s primary witnesses, by not allowing the Defendant to cross-examine another State’s witness about the underlying facts of the witness’s 2023 conviction for convicted felon in possession of a firearm, and by allowing the prosecutor to make inappropriate comments in closing argument without an adequate curative instruction by the trial court or the trial court’s enforcing its order that the prosecutor retract the inappropriate comment. The Defendant further argues that he is entitled to a new trial under the doctrine of cumulative error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, James Andrew DiDomenico, of four counts of rape, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises several issues. First, he contends that the trial court committed the following trial errors: (1) excluding evidence that the victim was dating a former client; (2) admitting cumulative testimony that repeated the victim’s account; (3) admitting testimony concerning letters sent by the Defendant’s divorce attorneys to the victim; and (4) refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact. He further argues that, even if these alleged errors are individually insufficient to warrant reversal, their cumulative effect deprived him of a fair trial. The Defendant also challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial based on purportedly newly discovered evidence, as well as the trial court’s sentencing determinations. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, David Patrick Lauderdale, was convicted by a jury of domestic assault, interfering with an emergency call, robbery, resisting arrest, felony evading arrest in a motor vehicle, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident, violating the financial responsibility law, and driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. On appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the robbery conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Ray Gene Elliott, III, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court
jury of three counts of rape, three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, three
counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and
one count of sexual activity involving a minor, and was sentenced by the trial court to an
effective term of thirty years at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The
sole issue the Defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Romeaka Evans, Defendant, was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury for second degree murder. After a jury trial, she was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty-five years in incarceration as a Range I, standard offender. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, and Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied a mistrial, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the trial court imposed an improper sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Brian Lee Fisk, appeals his Dyer County Circuit Court jury conviction of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within a Drug-Free Zone, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-432 (2014), challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentencing decision of the trial court. Because the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and because the trial court did not commit plain error by sentencing Defendant under the terms of the Drug-Free Zone Act in effect at the time of the offense, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, John David Cunningham, as charged of seven counts of rape of a child and six counts of aggravated sexual battery against his minor daughter, and the trial court imposed an effective 100-year sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-522 (Supp. 2013), -504(a)(4). On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the child’s forensic interview; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing partially consecutive sentencing; (5) the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant to stop taking depositions in the divorce case and to turn over existing deposition transcripts to the State; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to utilize an unauthenticated excerpt of a transcript lacking the court reporter’s certification. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms in Counts 1 through 13 to reflect the Defendant’s effective 100-year sentence.

The Defendant, Enoch Zarceno Turner, was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, aggravated child abuse, aggravated arson, and especially aggravated burglary, for which he received an effective sentence of life without parole. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the State established the identity of the Defendant as the perpetrator of each of the offenses. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a trial, a jury found Defendant, Matthew Richard Herron, guilty of felony
reckless endangerment with a firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm having been
convicted previously of a felony drug offense, for which he received a total effective
sentence of ten years’ incarceration. Defendant represented himself at trial and now
represents himself on appeal. Upon review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the
applicable law, we conclude that Defendant has failed to prepare a sufficient brief in
compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a) and Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b) and that, therefore, his claims are waived. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgments of the criminal court.

Defendant, Robert Vernon Johnson a/k/a Robert Vernon Griffin, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He received an effective sentence of thirty-one years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation for the firearm conviction and ordering consecutive sentences. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Mikal B. Morrow, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective six-year probationary sentence for aggravated assault by strangulation, false imprisonment, and interference with a 911 call. On appeal, he alleges that (1) the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the terms of his probation and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his probation after finding the Defendant had absconded. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a retrial, Defendant, William Eugene Moon, was convicted by a Coffee County jury of attempted second degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony and sentenced to an effective sixteen-year sentence to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter; that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a written request for the jury instruction before the jury began its deliberation; that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements; and that Defendant was denied a speedy trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The majority opinion offers a thoughtful examination of this challenging case. I agree with much of the majority’s well-stated analysis, but there is a salient point of departure between the majority’s understanding and mine. This point of departure relates to whether admission into evidence of Mr. Moon’s post-shooting statements to Officer Wilder violates the protections afforded by Miranda. I conclude that it does, and, accordingly, respectfully dissent.

The Petitioner, Donavan Daniel, was convicted in the Weakley County Circuit Court of three counts of first degree felony murder, one count of first degree premeditated murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. After a bifurcated sentencing hearing, the jury sentenced him to life without parole for two counts of first degree felony murder, life for the remaining count of first degree felony murder, and life for first degree premeditated murder. This court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal and affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. After a hearing, the post-conviction court granted the motion to reopen, granted post-conviction relief, and reduced the Petitioner’s two sentences of life without parole to life. On appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred in applying State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2022), to the Petitioner’s sentences of life without parole and, therefore, erred in reducing the Petitioner’s sentences to life. We agree with the State. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed, and the Petitioner’s sentences of life without parole for first degree felony murder in counts three and four are reinstated.

Tammy Cothren Dabbs, Defendant, pleaded guilty to possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell, and the trial court sentenced her to eight years suspended to probation. The trial court subsequently issued a probation violation warrant and multiple amended warrants alleging violations of probation Rule 8 based upon Defendant’s multiple positive drug tests for amphetamine and methamphetamine. At an evidentiary hearing, Defendant admitted to violating the terms of her probation, and the trial court determined the consequences of the violation. Defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve the balance of her eight-year sentence. Following a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2023, the Defendant, Aimee Lee Higby, entered a guilty plea to the facilitation of first degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and abuse of a corpse. By agreement, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her plea, which the trial court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Richard E. Reed, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged convictions for
possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free school zone;
possession with intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free school zone;
possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine within a drug-free childcare
zone; possession with intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more in a drug-free childcare zone;
possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; and unlawful
possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, for which the trial court imposed an effective
twenty-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel for failure to include an offer-of-proof transcript in the appellate
record; that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress; and that he was denied
due process because he was not permitted to testify or call trial counsel as a witness at the
post-conviction hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of
the post-conviction court.

In 2012, the Defendant, Jesse L. Kutrieb, pleaded guilty to two counts of vandalism of property valued at $500 or less, three counts of burglary other than a habitation, theft of property valued at $500 or less, and two counts of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of four years of supervised probation. The Defendant moved out of state without notifying his probation officer and was arrested and convicted of multiple offenses in Michigan. On this basis, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation because it did not rely on the facts set forth in the probation violation warrant, which only included absconding. After a thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Bernard Woodard, was convicted of burglary, theft of property valued at $2500 or more, and felony evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner, as a career offender, to an effective eighteen-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgments. State v. Woodard, No. M2020- 01538-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 5467384, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2021), no perm. app. filed. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging, among other claims, that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, this court reversed and concluded that the petition raised colorable claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. Woodard v. State, No. M2022-00162-CCA-R3-PC, 2022 WL 4932885, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2022), no perm. app. filed. On remand, the post-conviction court held a hearing and later issued an order denying relief. The Petitioner appeals, maintaining that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Lacey Jones, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion1 to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 based on his claim that he was illegally sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Christopher Alan Ayotte, pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor with greater than one hundred images, two counts of rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered an effective sentence of one hundred and twenty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him. Upon review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form as to Count One of Case No. 2023-B-1260 reflecting the defendant's multiple offender status.

The Petitioner, Keinesa Lillard, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief challenging her convictions for attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, especially aggravated robbery, evading arrest by use of a motor vehicle involving risk of death or serious bodily injury to others, and four counts of simple possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on her claim that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to communicate with her regarding the State’s proof; (2) failing to review discovery materials with her; and (3) failing to discuss pretrial motions and strategy with her. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.