APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Robert Andrew Hawkins, was convicted by a Claiborne County jury of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated assault. For these offenses, he received an effective sentence of sixteen years' in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial and abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Davidson County Grand Jury returned an indictment against the Defendant-Appellant, Xavier Tull-Morales, and his two codefendants, Alberto Conde-Valentino and Rodney Earl Jones, charging them with one count of first degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery.  Conde-Valentino filed a motion to sever the defendants’ cases, which Tull-Morales joined, and the trial court denied the motion.  Following a jury trial, Tull-Morales, along with his codefendants, were found guilty of the charged offenses of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, and he received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and fifteen years, respectively.  On appeal, Tull-Morales argues:  (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever his case from that of his codefendants; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony and/or co-conspirator testimony must be corroborated; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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

The defendant, Michael Frazier, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of thirty-seven years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Rickey Lee Brown, Jr., was convicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI); DUI per se; DUI, fourth offense; and driving on a revoked license.  The trial court merged the first three offenses and sentenced the appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to four years for DUI, fourth offense.  The trial court sentenced him to six months in confinement to be served at 75% release eligibility for driving on a revoked license and ordered that the four-year sentence be served consecutively to the six-month sentence.  On appeal, the appellant contends that his four-year sentence is excessive.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner entered pleas of nolo contendere to aggravated robbery, robbery, and fraudulent use of a credit card for which he received an effective sentence of twelve years. He filed the instant post-conviction petition, and following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner contends his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Willie Andrew Cole, appeals pro se from the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition for DNA analysis.  Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Desmond Shelton Spann, filed a petition in the Davidson County Criminal Court seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school and conspiracy to possess 300 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school.  The Petitioner alleged that his counsel was ineffective at trial and on appeal.  The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Allen Booker, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court found that the Defendant, Gregory L. Moody, violated the conditions of his probation when he was arrested and convicted of multiple crimes in North Carolina and failed to appear at his first meeting with his probation officer. The Defendant asserts that his due process rights were violated by the trial court because of a delayed hearing on the violation of probation and lack of appointed counsel, and he asserts he is entitled to sentencing credits. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Thomas Edward Kotewa, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2006 Anderson County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Myron Pierre Walton, entered guilty pleas in case numbers 232819 and 232878 to two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The Defendant was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of eight years on supervised probation. Later, in case number 242679, the Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation in cases 232819 and 232878 and sentenced him to serve three years concurrently to the previously-imposed eight-year sentences. On August 21, 2014, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct illegal sentences. The trial court summarily denied relief, and the Defendant appealed. This court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court summarily denied relief because of changes in the controlling law. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Lajuan Harbison, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, and employing a firearm during commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210(a)(1) (2014) (second degree murder), 39-17-1324 (2014) (employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony), 39-12-101(a) (2014) (criminal attempt). The Defendant received an effective sixteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and (3) the trial court erred by classifying him as a dangerous offender and ordering consecutive service of his effective sentence with his sentence in a previous case. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jerome Sidney Barrett, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder^. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred in denying his request for independent DNA testing.  Upon review, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for new hearings to determine whether the Petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief and independent DNA testing...

Defendant, Kenneth A. Jones, was convicted of one count of robbery and sentenced to fifteen years.  On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial after a State’s witness made reference to other crimes of which Defendant was suspected.  Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Antonio Champion, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the challenged sentences are expired, the defendant is not entitled relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Bakary Kassama, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the defendant failed to state a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the summary dismissal of the motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant-Appellant, Joe Willis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury as charged of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of theft of property valued at $500 or less, and one count of evading arrest, and the trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence. In his sole issue on appeal, Willis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Gordon Wayne Davis, pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses including one count of possession with intent to sell a Schedule II narcotic in a park zone, two counts of sale of a Schedule II narcotic, one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of simple possession. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner, a Range II offender, to an effective sentence of fifteen years, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After review, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief. We therefore reverse the post-conviction court's judgment.

The petitioner, Antonio Bonds, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s preliminary order dismissing his third petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claims the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as time-barred. Upon review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s preliminary order dismissing the petition.

The defendant, Charles Ward, Jr., appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence.  The defendant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Rule 36.1 relief was not available because the alleged illegal sentences had expired prior to the filing of the motion. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion.

The petitioner, Danny R. Mays, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, John Barlow, of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect, and the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction for aggravated child abuse but reversed and dismissed his conviction for aggravated child neglect, noting that the holding did not change his sentence. State v. John Barlow, No. W2008-01128-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 1687772, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Apr. 26, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 24, 2010). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court, after a hearing, denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

In consolidated cases, the defendant, Robert Butler, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated burglary, Class C felonies; theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; and theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to ten years for each aggravated burglary conviction, six years for the theft of property valued at $1000 or more conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the theft of property valued at $500 or less conviction. The court ordered partial consecutive sentencing and imposed an effective term of twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony from a State's witness that contained information from his statement in another case pending against him and that the court erred in sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 1 and 2 of Case No. 13-06085 to check the box indicating that the defendant was found guilty in those counts.

The petitioner, Johnny Parker, acting pro se, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief, which, at his request, this court consolidated for the purposes of appeal. On appeal, as we understand, he argues as to both that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective. After review, we affirm the denial of the petitions.