APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of disrupting a lawful
meeting, a Class A misdemeanor, and received an eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence
to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence
is insufficient to support her conviction and that the statute prohibiting disruption of a
lawful meeting is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her. Based on our review, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Marcus Anthony Pearson, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court did not sufficiently set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each argument raised in his Rule 36.1 motion. Additionally, the Defendant contends that his consecutive sentences are illegal because he was not resentenced in accordance with this court’s prior order, and as such, adequate Wilkerson findings were never made to support the imposition of consecutive sentences. Lastly, he claims the amended judgment forms were not entered in a timely fashion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant has filed an application for interlocutory appeal, see Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 9, seeking review of the trial court’s February 14, 2025 order denying his motion to dismiss a presentment charging him with aggravated stalking. See
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315 (2023). The Defendant asserts that interlocutory review of the trial court’s order is required to prevent irreparable injury to the Defendant; to prevent needless, expensive, and protracted litigation; and to develop a uniform body of law. Tenn. R. App. P. 9(a)(1), (2), and (3). The State has filed an answer in opposition to the Defendant’s application. Following our review, the Defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal is DENIED.

Defendant, Nicholas S. Collins, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of the following offenses: domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor (count 2); assault, a Class A misdemeanor (count 3); and aggravated domestic assault, a Class C felony (count 5). He received an effective sentence of seven and one-half years’ incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Before the court is the pro se Defendant’s “Application for Extraordinary Relief.” See Tenn. R. App. P. 10. The Defendant raises two issues for this court’s review:
1. Whether Unicoi County Court(s) are moving [in] clear absen[ce] of jurisdiction?
2. Whether Unicoi County Court err[ed] in denying Petitioner access to Court by vehicle of habeas corpus?
The Defendant alleges that he was arrested illegally, that the trial court denied him counsel in violation of his constitutional rights, and that the trial court refused to hear a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He seeks dismissal of his charges.
The pleading contains no documentation in support of the Defendant’s allegations.1 As such, the pleading is wholly insufficient for this court to engage in any review of the trial court’s actions. See Tenn. R. App. P. 10(c).

Defendant, Jessie Rose Hodge, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s decision to deny judicial diversion for her guilty-pleaded conviction of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-212. Following our review, we affirm.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Decory Sanchez Smith, of first degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to life plus ten years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced him by imposing a ten-year sentence for his robbery conviction and ordering consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Defendant, Nathaniel Lee Mitchell, appeals from his Giles County Circuit Court conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, for which he received a sentence of two years, suspended to two years’ supervised probation. Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior incident in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the evidence of his reckless mental state was insufficient. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Devan Shepherd, Defendant, was convicted by a Madison County jury of first degree felony murder, three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to prohibit any discussion of Defendant’s age at the time of the offenses; and that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on defense of a third person. Following our review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.