APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Bobby V. Summers, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The record and the Defendant’s brief have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby suspends the requirement of a responsive brief by the State and affirms the trial court’s order pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Denver Richardson, as charged of first degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court improperly admitted four of his prior convictions for impeachment purposes; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (4) the trial court erred in denying jury instructions on self-defense and defense of another; and (5) cumulative error requires reversal of his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Brent Paul Moon, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective three-year probationary sentence for felony evading arrest, simple possession of methamphetamine, and driving on a revoked license. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and, as such, the probation violation should be dismissed. Next, he contends that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements at the revocation hearing because no “good cause” existed for the statements’ entry and that the statements were not reliable. Lastly, he claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation and running the revocation sentence consecutively to the sentence for his new criminal convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for correction of a clerical error on the Defendant’s judgment form for simple possession of methamphetamine.

The Defendant, Matthew Saunders, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of judicial diversion and entry of judgments of conviction in two cases. Specifically, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his diversion by failing to timely disclose multiple social media accounts when he registered as a sex offender. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Allen Hessmer, was convicted by a Smith County Criminal Court jury of possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and driving while in possession of methamphetamine, a Class B misdemeanor. The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding photographs relating to his passenger, Natasha Jordan, in violation of the Defendant’s due process rights to present a defense; (2) whether the trial court erred in preventing a defense witness’s testimony about her knowledge of Ms. Jordan; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding impeachment evidence relating to an arresting officer’s employment history in violation of the Defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him; (4) whether the State violated State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), for failing to preserve the patrol vehicle video recording of the Defendant’s traffic stop; (5) whether the Defendant is entitled to a resentencing hearing due to the trial court’s admission of a video recording at sentencing of the Defendant that was not beforehand disclosed by the State; (6) whether the trial judge erred by not recusing himself; and (7) whether the cumulative effect of the various alleged errors rendered the Defendant’s trial unfair. Based on our review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions. However, pursuant to State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tenn. 2015), we remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment in count three to reflect that the sentence imposed for the Defendant’s misdemeanor conviction of possession of methamphetamine while driving was merged into the felony possession of methamphetamine conviction in count one.

In 2024, the Defendant, Dana Kelly Teasley, pleaded guilty to eighteen counts of theft and fraud-related charges, and the trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of twelve years of probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In 2019, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Andre Bowen, of facilitation of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court ordered him to serve an effective sentence of seventy-two years of incarceration. On appeal, this court affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Bowen, No. W2019-01210-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 1400929, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 13, 2021), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 15, 2021). The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought relief pursuant to a writ of error coram nobis. Bowen v. State, No. W2022-00229-CCA-R3-ECN, 2022 WL 17408878, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2022), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 8, 2023). The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief contending that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Petitioner appeals offering multiple grounds for a due process tolling of the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Defendant, Fernando Ballard, appeals the trial court’s decision to fully revoke his probation. He contends that the trial court did not have authority to fully revoke his probation because there was insufficient evidence to find that Defendant committed a non-technical violation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Clayton Nelvis, was arrested in January 2023, and 1st Out Bonding Company secured his release by executing a bail bond as surety. After the Defendant failed to appear for his initial arraignment, the trial court issued a conditional judgment forfeiting the bail bond. After 180 days, the trial court entered a final judgment of forfeiture when the surety failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. Two weeks later, the surety moved to set aside the final judgment, asserting that it was not liable under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-139(d), which relieves a surety of liability where the defendant is not timely entered into a state or federal fugitive database following a failure to appear. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the request for relief was untimely. On appeal, the surety contends that the statute extinguished its liability and that the trial court had no authority to enter a final forfeiture. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Trameisha L. Farris, of first degree felony murder, and the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. More specifically, she argues that (1) the evidence is legally insufficient to prove that a robbery occurred; and (2) even assuming that a robbery occurred, the State failed to prove that she participated in that crime. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree with the Defendant and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, James Brent Wall, pled guilty to the sale of a controlled substance and two counts of TennCare fraud. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence, which it suspended to probation. The State later alleged that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation by refusing to submit to drug screening, failing to pay restitution, and absconding from supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the suspended sentences and ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation because the court clerk retired the case, recalled the violation warrants, and issued an alias capias. Upon our review, we agree. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the proceedings.

Defendant, Christopher Kenn Baker, pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape for which he received a sentence of two years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Monroe County jury found the Defendant, Russell Matthew Morgan, guilty of solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape and solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means. On appeal, the Defendant raises three issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means; (2) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-528 prohibits solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In January 2019, the Petitioner, James David Duncan, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve ten years and placed him on supervised probation. In January 2020, the trial court revoked the Petitioner’s probation sentence. On appeal, this court affirmed the revocation. State v. Duncan, No. E2020-00827-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 3403152, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2021), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2021). In December 2021, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief that was amended with the assistance of counsel in July 2023. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Tylar Scott Johnson, of four counts of rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty-six years in confinement at a one hundred-percent service rate. On appeal, the Defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, that improper argument by the State affected the verdict, and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Brendan T. Negron, appeals from his conviction for aggravated domestic assault. Specifically, he contends that evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish only a conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault because the barstool utilized in the assault did not constitute a deadly weapon. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Bobby V. Summers, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis as untimely. Following our review of the entire record, briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Defendant, Michael Joe Cunningham, pled guilty in two separate cases to one count of making a false report and one count possession of twenty-six grams or more of methamphetamine. He received an effective fourteen-year community corrections sentence that was later transferred to probation. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation based on Defendant’s arrest for new offenses, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his probation rather than ordering treatment for his drug addiction. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Daniel J. Dreaden, for three counts of rape. On the State’s motion, the trial court dismissed Count 3. Defendant waived a jury trial, and following a bench trial, Defendant was convicted on the remaining two counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total effective sentence of eight years, with ten months to serve and the balance to be supervised on probation. Defendant appeals his convictions, asserting 1) that his confrontation right was violated when the trial court prohibited him from cross-examining the victim, Defendant’s then-wife, about her extra-marital affair to establish her motive for the allegations of rape; and 2) that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Defendant raped the victim. We affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand for entry of a judgment form in Count 3 to reflect dismissal of that count.

The defendant, Rex A. Martin, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated assault, assault, preventing another from making an emergency call, possession of a firearm while under a court order, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he was sentenced to an effective term of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to seven of his eight convictions - aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, assault, preventing another from making an emergency call, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Leavy L. Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Williamson County trial court, over objection from the State of Tennessee, granted the defendant’s motion to depose a witness for discovery purposes. This Court granted the State’s application for an extraordinary appeal under Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon our review, we conclude the trial court erred in its decision to grant the defendant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Petitioner, Eddie Harris, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2016 convictions of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree murder in the perpetration of a robbery, and one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. On appeal, the Petitioner argues the post-conviction court erred by failing to find that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to (1) present a witness in support of his defense, (2) cite favorable law during an evidentiary hearing or make an offer of proof following the trial court’s adverse ruling, and (3) object to alleged inconsistencies in the grand jury process. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, John Patrick Tracy, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court imposed the agreed upon effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by an additional fifteen years to be served on Community Corrections. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his guilty pleas were not voluntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file essential motions, failed to investigate, and misrepresented his legal experience. He also argues that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. He further contends that the cumulative effect of his attorney’s errors entitles him to relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Douglas E. Alvey, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree murder. On appeal, he argues: (1) trial counsel were ineffective in failing to present expert testimony negating the mens rea; and (2) that he did not knowingly understand the nature of his constitutional right to testify at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.