APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Valerie Garrett, was convicted following a bench trial of driving under the influence (“DUI”), third offense, and failure to maintain lane of travel. Defendant claims that the deputy who arrested her lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In June 2021, the Shelby County Grand Jury issued a three-count indictment charging Roy Frazier II (“Defendant Frazier”) with two counts of aggravated rape of a child (Counts 1 and 2) and Bionka McGaughy (“Defendant McGaughy”) with child abuse or neglect of a child eight years of age or less (Count 3). Following a joint trial, a jury convicted Defendant Frazier of aggravated rape of a child in Count 1 and the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual battery in Count 2, for which he received a sentence of life without parole plus twenty years. The jury convicted Defendant McGaughy of child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, for which the trial court imposed a sentence of two years to be served in the workhouse. On appeal, Defendant Frazier contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery; (2) the trial court erred by admitting multiple hearsay statements; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity; (4) the trial court misapplied two enhancement factors in sentencing; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentencing. For her part, Defendant McGaughy argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for child neglect of a child eight years of age or less. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of conviction in all respects.

The Defendant, Jay Walker, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State failed to meet its burden of proving identity beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court gave an erroneous instruction to the jury during their deliberations. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Jeremiah Devon Cohill, was convicted by a jury of carjacking (count one), employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count two), aggravated assault (count three), and conspiracy to commit carjacking (count four). The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-four years as a Range I offender to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court committed plain error in its jury instruction for employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (3) his sentence is excessive; and (4) the judgment for count one contains a clerical error. Following our review of the entire record, the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we reverse, vacate and dismiss Defendant’s conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count two). In all other aspects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Gary Dyquanne Cross, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal
Court jury of facilitation of first-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years in the
Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is
insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) cellphone record evidence that was presented to
the jury was unreliable; (3) the trial court erred in allowing prejudicial photographs into
evidence; (4) the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to “rehear” the testimony of a
State’s witness during its deliberations; (5) the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial
after an individual communicated to a member of the jury; and (6) the cumulative effect of
the errors warranted a new trial. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable
law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Tristan Weatherspoon, appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s denial.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the defendant, Christopher Glenn Clark, of first-degree premeditated murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1); first-degree murder in perpetration of a felony, id. § 39-13-202(a)(2); burglary of a building other than a habitation, id. § 39-13-1002(a)(1); theft under $1000, id. § 39-14-103; unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a prior violent felony, id. § 39-17- 1307(b)(1)(A); and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a prior felony drug offense, id. § 39-13-1307(b)(1)(B). After a sentencing hearing, the defendant received an effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, murder in perpetration of a felony, and burglary. Additionally, he contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. However, we also conclude the trial court failed to make the required findings in support of its sentencing determinations, and therefore, vacate the defendant’s consecutive terms and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing to determine the appropriateness of consecutive terms.

The Petitioner, Woodie Jeanette Arendall, pled guilty to one count of aggravated child neglect, and the trial court sentenced her to serve fifteen years’ imprisonment. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Marcus Dejuan Perkins, of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying an enhancement factor and denying an alternative sentence to incarceration. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Haywood County jury convicted the Defendant, Tondre Dupress Ragland, of attempted second degree murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty years in confinement. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions, but we reversed the imposition of consecutive sentences and remanded to the trial court for consideration of the Wilkerson factors. State v. Ragland, W2022-01303-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 3947501, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 12, 2023), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. On remand, the trial court found that the Defendant was a dangerous offender and again imposed consecutive sentences. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it found that he was a dangerous offender for purposes of consecutive sentencing. After conducting a de novo review, we conclude that the Defendant’s sentences should be served concurrently, rather than consecutively.

The petitioner, Donald James Robinson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Tobarus Burton, pleaded guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one count of aggravated sexual battery. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504. He received an agreed eight-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f), which was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Bedford County jury found the Defendant, Christ M. Christopher, guilty of two counts of rape of a child. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of the sentences imposed. He argues that the trial court misapplied two enhancement factors and imposed an effective sentence greater than necessary to achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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.

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.

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.

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.