APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Dontayelle Balfour, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to adequately consult with him and failed to fully investigate witnesses that Petitioner requested prior to Petitioner’s guilty plea to second degree murder. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the record, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

Defendant, Marvin Glenn Borden, was charged with one count of possession of more than 0.5 gram of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to the possession of methamphetamine charge with an agreed four-year sentence as a Range I offender to be served in confinement. The State dismissed the drug paraphernalia charge. Defendant reserved a certified question of law under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Jamarcus Miller, was indicted by a Shelby County grand jury for first-degree premeditated murder (Count 1) and
first-degree felony murder for a killing in the perpetration of attempted robbery (Count 2). A jury convicted Defendant of the
lesser-included offense of second-degree murder in Count 1, and convicted Defendant as charged in Count 2. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction in Count 2. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Benjamin R. Franklin, appeals his convictions for three counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication and three counts of vehicular homicide by reckless driving. The Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by admitting Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) blood and urine test results; (2) the court erred by admitting photographs of the victims at the crash scene; (3) the evidence was insufficient relative to intoxication; (4) the court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial during the State’s rebuttal argument; and (5) the court erred in sentencing by imposing the maximum sentence, ordering consecutive sentencing, and suspending the Defendant’s driver’s license for ten years. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Tazarius Jay Vond Leach, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of carjacking and his effective fifteen-year sentence. He contends that the
post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Rhea County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Michael Powell, of one count of aggravated statutory rape. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years and nine months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Sparkle Trenetta Jones, of selling and delivering less than fifteen grams of heroin within a drug-free school zone, Class A felonies. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that she serve seventeen years for each conviction and merged the convictions. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; that trial court committed plain error by allowing irrelevant testimony; and that the trial court erred by applying two enhancement factors. Based upon the record and the parties’ brief, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Danielle Lynette Wright, was convicted of second-degree murder by a Knox County Jury. She received a sentence of seventeen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction of seconddegree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Kevin Lane, Defendant, was indicted for multiple offenses stemming from incidents that occurred at the home of his mother and involved both Defendant's mother and brother. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit the State from utilizing Defendant's prior convictions for impeachment. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of aggravated criminal trespass, two counts of assault, one count of theft, five counts of domestic assault, one count of robbery, and one count of carjacking. As a result of the convictions, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-three years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (l) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce evidence of prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

James Demoss, Defendant, pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter and two counts of aggravated assault. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the manner of service of the effective fifteen-year sentence was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant’s sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to serve his sentence in incarceration rather than granting an alternative sentence. Because the trial court failed to articulate adequate reasons for denying an eligible defendant an alternative sentence, the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness does not apply on appeal, and this court can either (1) conduct a de novo review to determine whether there is an adequate basis for denying an alternative sentence; or (2) remand for the trial court to consider the requisite factors in determining whether to grant an alternative sentence. We determine that the record on appeal is sufficient for this court to undertake a de novo review, and after a de novo review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the denial of an alternative sentence.

Charles L. Jones, III, Petitioner, appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief from his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after he pled guilty to second-degree murder. After a review, we affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief.

Pro-se petitioner, Tracy Lynn Harris, appeals from the Carroll County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant, Michael Ryan Boggs, was indicted for theft of property valued at more than $10,000 and less than $60,000, a Class C felony; aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class E felony; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-103(a), -14-105(a)(4), -14-402, -14-403(a), -17-1307(b)(1)(B), -17-1324(a). Following a jury trial, the Defendant was acquitted of the firearms offenses and convicted of the theft of property and aggravated burglary offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence of ten years on each count, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relative to his identity as a perpetrator of the burglary, arguing that the accomplice testimony was incredible and not adequately corroborated. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jeffery Yates, appeals from the summary dismissal of his latest petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner has repeatedly and unsuccessfully challenged his convictions and sentences. In this, his latest challenge, Petitioner filed a petition for
post-conviction relief challenging his 2003 convictions. He alleged that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court had improperly amended his judgment of conviction. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that the grounds for relief had clearly been waived because they had not been raised in Petitioner’s prior petitions for
post-conviction relief. Following our review, we conclude that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

The defendant, Curtis Lane, appeals his 2019 Knox County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder, arguing that the 22-year sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Gary Wayne Ford, appeals the Meigs County Criminal Court’s denial of alternative sentencing for his conviction of voluntary manslaughter, arguing that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, admitted improper rebuttal evidence at the sentencing hearing, and based its decision on unreliable or contradicted evidence. After careful examination of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

After pleading guilty to several offenses, Defendant, Joshua Bryan Johnson, received an effective eight-year sentence to be served on probation. A violation of probation warrant was issued and the trial court fully revoked his probation after a hearing. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. After the notice of appeal was filed, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure asking the trial court to modify his sentence to provide for inpatient rehabilitation. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and denied relief. Defendant filed an additional notice of appeal and this Court consolidated the appeals. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Barbara Nicole Napper, Defendant, was indicted for two counts of selling heroin in a school zone. She pled guilty to two reduced charges of selling heroin without the school-zone enhancement. She was sentenced to ten years for each conviction, to be served consecutively to each other. The sentences were suspended to community corrections. Multiple violation warrants were filed after Defendant tested positive for drugs. Prior to the disposition of the alleged violations, Defendant was indicted for introducing heroin into a penal facility. The State filed a motion seeking resentencing on Defendant’s original sentence of twenty years. After a hearing on the violations, the trial court revoked Defendant’s community corrections sentence and increased the sentence on each underlying offense by two years, for a total effective sentence of twenty-four years. Defendant timely appeals the revocation of her community corrections sentence and the trial court’s decision to increase her underlying sentence. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Marlon William Cotham, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, and the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of nine years. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Dennis Judge, pleaded guilty to sexual battery by an authority figure, and the trial court sentenced him to the agreed sentence of four years of Community Corrections. More than a year later, the Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the trial court allow him to file an untimely petition for post-conviction relief and also a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court found that due process did not require a tolling of the statute of limitations, and it dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the postconviction court’s judgment.

The pro se Petitioner, Pamela Moses, appeals the trial court’s denial of her “Motion for Expiration of Sentence,” which the trial court essentially treated as a motion for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the motion.

Petitioner, Kendall Joy, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis in which he alleged that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the error coram nobis court.

The Defendant, Dennis Lee Seale, filed a Rule 9 interlocutory appeal seeking our review of the trial court’s ruling that some of the prosecution’s out-of-state witnesses could testify at trial via two-way video conferencing technology. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that four of the prosecution’s witnesses could testify via teleconferencing rather than in person. The Defendant filed an application for an interlocutory appeal, which the State did not oppose, and which the trial court granted. This court determined that this application met the criteria of Rule 9, and granted the appeal. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred because its ruling violated his rights pursuant to the Confrontation Clause of both the Federal and our State constitution. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that this case, as one of first impression in this state, provides this court the opportunity to hold that the standard as articulated in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), should extend to two-way video conferencing technology. As such we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for a case-specific and witness-specific determination of whether the denial of the Defendant’s right to confront witnesses is necessary to further an important public interest.

The Defendant, Curtis Reed Hosendove, pleaded guilty as a Range II, multiple offender to making a false report, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-16-502 (2018). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received a four-year sentence, and the trial court was to determine the manner of service. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the court committed reversible error by receiving evidence in the form victim impact statements. Although we conclude that the victim impact statements were irrelevant to the Defendant’s conviction for making false report, the error was harmless. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Billy Mack Jones, appeals his Dyer County Circuit Court jury conviction of facilitating the sale of a Schedule II substance, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator. Because the record is insufficient to facilitate our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.