APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In 2022, the Petitioner, Jaslene Washington, pleaded guilty in the Marion County General Sessions Court to assault and resisting arrest and received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days of unsupervised probation conditioned upon the payment of fines and costs. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging multiple claims including ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that counsel was ineffective in providing erroneous information regarding the expungement of her convictions and that the Petitioner relied upon this erroneous information in deciding to enter the guilty pleas. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Ladarius Quashon Kees, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence and reinstatement of the remainder of his original five-year sentence in confinement, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to adequately consider the appropriate consequences for his violations and by failing to weigh his request for a rehabilitation program.  Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Petitioner, Fabian Claxton, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. After a full review of the record, briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. 

A Jefferson County jury convicted the Defendant, Melvin Chism, III, of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that he constructively possessed the firearm; and (2) evidence in this case was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when an officer took and retained his identification card without reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Brian C. Lautenschlager, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis (“the Petition”), seeking relief based on a “newly discovered” affidavit that was signed in 2007 and “sent” to him in 2023. The coram nobis court found that the Petition was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations and that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and summarily dismissed the Petition. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Petitioner, Derek Cunningham, Jr., claims that the trial court erred by summarily denying his pro se Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and his pro se Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, both for failing to state a colorable claim. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Byron Hartshaw, of two counts of robbery, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to serve an effective term of fifteen years. After that, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to prepare a defense, failed to clarify a pretrial ruling, and failed to object during cross-examination, opening statements, and closing arguments. He also argued that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s deficiencies was sufficient to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Colby Mason Kilburn, was convicted in the Lawrence County Circuit Court of first degree premeditated murder and received a sentence of life in confinement.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove premeditation and intent.  Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded this case for reconsideration in light of State v. Andre JuJuan Lee Green, --- S.W.3d ---, No. M2022-00899-SC-R11-CD, 2024 WL 3942511 (Tenn. 2024). See State v. Torrian Seantel Bishop, No. W2023-00713-CCA-R3- CD, 2024 WL 1564346, (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2024) (Bishop I), case remanded (Tenn. Aug. 27, 2024). This court concluded in the previous appeal that the certified question was dispositive of the case and that the officers had probable cause to search the Defendant’s car because an officer smelled the odor of marijuana. Upon further review, we conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of the case because our supreme court in Andre JuJuan Lee Green made clear that a trial court must apply a totality of the circumstances analysis when determining whether an officer has probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a car. --- S.W.3d ---, 2024 WL 3942511, at *6. Upon consideration of the certified question and our supreme court’s holding in Andre JuJuan Lee Green, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider the certified question presented. The appeal is dismissed.

The Madison County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Andre Davis, Jr., for one count each of harassment and aggravated stalking. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective two-year sentence. Defendant appeals and argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Alexis Faxon, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of reckless driving and
speeding which resulted in a fatal two-car accident. The trial court sentenced Defendant
to consecutive sentences of thirty days’ incarceration for speeding and six months
suspended to probation for reckless driving. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence
is insufficient to support her conviction for reckless driving, that the trial court erred by
denying a mistrial based on alleged discovery violations, and that the trial court erred by
admitting photographs and victim impact statements at the sentencing hearing and by
ordering thirty days’ incarceration. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the
parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Jerrell Anderson, appeals his Shelby County convictions for four counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, and two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying two motions for mistrial and in admitting redacted recordings of jail phone calls into evidence instead of admitting the calls in their entirety. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Russell Lynn Onks, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of four counts of violation of the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification and Tracking Act of 2004. After a hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of two years, suspended to probation after service of ninety days of incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he established a primary residence, secondary residence, or a physical presence within Sullivan County to support counts one and two. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Allen Hessmer, appeals the Wilson County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.  Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Christopher Paul Drake, pled guilty to the offenses of attempted aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years and placed the Defendant on probation after service of six months in custody. Thereafter, the Defendant was alleged to have committed a “zero tolerance” violation of his probation by being discharged from an outpatient sex offender treatment program. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked his suspended sentences in full. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the sentences into execution. He also asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the treatment provider’s Notice of Termination despite the provider’s absence from the hearing. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jordan Ballard, was convicted by a Lake County Circuit Court jury of
aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; rape, a Class B felony; aggravated assault, a Class
C felony; and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-304 (2018)
(aggravated kidnapping), 39-13-503 (2019) (subsequently amended) (rape); 39-13-102
(Supp. 2020) (subsequently amended) (aggravated assault); 39-13-101 (Supp. 2020)
(subsequently amended) (assault). The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of ten
years for aggravated kidnapping, ten years for rape, four years for aggravated assault, and
eleven months, twenty-nine days for assault, for an effective ten-year sentence. On appeal,
the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated
kidnapping conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jacob Wyatt Allen, Defendant, appeals from the revocation of judicial diversion after subsequent arrests for driving under the influence, aggravated criminal trespass, driving on a revoked license, driving under the influence, violation of the motorcycle helmet law, and violation of an ignition interlock system.  Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the revocation of judicial diversion.

Defendants, Jeffrey August Tate and Steven Ogle, were indicted in separate cases for multiple counts of theft of property and home construction fraud involving separate victims. Before trial, both Defendants filed motions to dismiss the home construction fraud counts in their respective indictments, alleging that a portion of the home construction fraud statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-154(b)(1), was unconstitutionally vague on its face, and Defendant Tate also argued that the statute was vague as applied to him. Following a joint hearing on both Defendants’ motions, the trial court concluded that the home construction fraud statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The State appealed both Defendants’ cases pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c), and this court consolidated the appeals. We conclude that the State does not have an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(c) because the record does not reflect that the substantive effect of the trial court’s order resulted in the dismissal of the indictments. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.

Paul L. Foutner, Defendant, was indicted for first degree murder, three counts of attempted
first degree murder, reckless endangerment, two counts of employing a firearm in the
commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of felon in possession of a firearm for
his role in a shooting in Knoxville. The trial court dismissed the reckless endangerment
charge before trial, and a jury convicted Defendant of second degree murder, attempted
second degree murder, two counts of reckless endangerment, employing a firearm in the
commission of a dangerous felony, employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous
felony with a prior violent felony, and felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant received
an effective sentence of 54 years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his convictions for second degree murder and attempted second degree
murder. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

A Hancock County Jury convicted the Defendant, Shoshanna Cabanting, of vandalism of
property valued at $1,000 or less, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Tennessee Code
Annotated section 39-14-408(b)(1). The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months
and twenty-nine days which was suspended after service of thirty days in jail. On appeal,
the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing the thirty-day term of
confinement because it failed to consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing
Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C). Upon our review, we reverse the
judgment of the trial court and remand for a limited resentencing hearing.

Defendant, Gary E. Brown, was indicted by a Knox County Grand Jury in case number
122940 for aggravated assault by strangulation, domestic assault, false imprisonment,
interfering with an emergency call, and two counts of violating a no contact order.
Defendant was later charged by information in case number 125355 with domestic
aggravated assault. In case number 122940, Defendant pled guilty to domestic assault and
was sentenced to 179 days for which he had credit. In case number 125355, Defendant
pled guilty to aggravated assault with an agreed-upon sentence of three years suspended to
probation, with the trial court to determine after a hearing whether Defendant would
receive judicial diversion. Following the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion,
Defendant appeals arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial
diversion. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable
law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Brian Tremaine Mitchell, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, one count of first degree felony murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and received a total effective sentence of two consecutive life terms plus seventeen years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements into evidence as dying declarations, (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the statements as dying declarations, (4) the trial court erred by refusing to suppress his Facebook records from evidence, (5) the trial court erred by allowing his jailhouse statements and internet searches into evidence, (6) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that one of the victims was selling drugs and might have been intoxicated at the time of the crimes, and (7) he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Roy T. Lewis, appeals from the Robertson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following a hearing, in which Petitioner alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because trial counsel did not inform him of his offender classification.  Following a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. 

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Terrance Williams, of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Kevin Davidson, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probationary
sentence for ten drug-related convictions in two separate cases. Following our review of
the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.