APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Anthony Duane Gray, Jr., of assault,
kidnapping, possession with intent to sell or deliver heroin, four counts of possession with
the intent to sell or deliver four different scheduled drugs, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him as a Multiple Offender to an effective
sentence of fourteen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1)
the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever his offenses; (2) the trial court erred
when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found during the search of a motel room;
(3) the trial court erred with it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the
search of two cell phones; (4) the State violated his right to due process by intentionally
allowing false testimony; (5) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment
of acquittal to the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping; (6) the evidence was
insufficient to sustain his conviction for kidnapping; and (7) the trial court erred when it
denied his motion for new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Antonio Glover, of aggravated rape for
which he received a sentence of seventeen years with the Tennessee Department of
Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial judge in preventing him from
impeaching the victim with evidence of the victim’s prior sexual history. Following our
review, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.

Pro se Petitioner, Alfonso Thomas Peck,1 was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts of aggravated rape, for which he received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily denied in part and granted in part. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the partial summary denial, arguing that his sentences are illegal because the judgment documents fail to specify the sentence length in years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner appeals as of right the Bradley County Criminal Court’s order dismissing his motion to correct illegal sentences. Upon our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to prepare a sufficient brief compliant with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b). Accordingly, the Petitioner’s issues are waived, and his appeal is dismissed.

The Petitioner, Roderick Bates, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial
of his post-conviction relief from his jury-trial convictions for especially aggravated
burglary and first degree murder, for which he is serving an effective life sentence. On
appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief for his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, A Close Bonding Co., LLC, acting as the bail bond surety in the criminal
case of the Defendant, Jose S. Loredo, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial
of the Appellant’s motion to recuse and motion to set aside final forfeiture of the
Defendant’s bond. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Connie Reguli, of one count of facilitation of custodial interference and two counts of being an accessory after the fact. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years of probation after service of thirty days in confinement and denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her convictions. She also asserts that the trial court erred by (1) failing to dismiss the indictment for its failure to include an essential element of the underlying felony of custodial interference; (2) failing to instruct the jury concerning the essential elements of custodial interference; and (3) failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of voluntary surrender and legal representation. Finally, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of split confinement and denying her request for judicial diversion. Consistent with our decision in State v. Hancock, 678 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023), we recognize that the principal’s actions in this case did not violate Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-306 at the time they occurred. As such, we hold that the Defendant cannot be guilty of facilitating the felony of custodial interference or being an accessory after the fact. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse the trial court’s judgments, vacate the Defendant’s convictions, and dismiss the case.

Michael Craft, Jackie Dewayne Davis, and Zachary Stuart Tablack, collectively “Defendants,” pled guilty as Range I offenders to two counts of voluntary manslaughter with the issue of judicial diversion and, alternatively, the length and manner of service of their sentences, to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced each Defendant to concurrent terms of six years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendants Davis and Tablack claim that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion, by denying probation, and by sentencing them to the maximum sentence. Defendant Craft claims that the court erred by imposing the maximum sentence. Discerning no reversible error, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Lynn Wilkes, pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to
burglary, a Class D felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple
offender to five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served
consecutively to his prior Tennessee sentences and to his sentence in a pending Florida
case. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying a sentence of
split confinement that would have enabled the Defendant to enter a rehabilitative program
to treat his drug addiction. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a Shelby County jury trial, Defendant, Matthew Smith, was convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, robbery, and theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. The trial court sentenced him to an effective term of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that his dual convictions for robbery and theft violate his protections against double jeopardy. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions, but we also conclude the trial court should have merged Defendant’s convictions for robbery and theft. We, therefore, remand the case to the trial court to merge the appropriate counts but affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The Fayette County Circuit Court sentenced the Defendant, Leroy Moreno, as a Range I
offender to nine years at thirty percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction
following his guilty-pleaded conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver
between one-half gram and twenty-six grams. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the
trial court abused its discretion by sentencing the Defendant above the minimum sentence
in his range and by denying him probation. Regarding the length of his sentence, the
Defendant specifically contends that the trial court had no basis to deviate from the
minimum sentence due to the Defendant’s minimal criminal history and the enhancement
and mitigating factors’ offsetting each other. He further argues that the trial court erred by
failing to consider the statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the
Courts (“AOC”) regarding sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee. Relative
to the trial court’s denial of probation, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by
denying probation when he accepted responsibility for his conduct and had no previous
probation violations. Additionally, he contends that the trial court erred by denying
probation because basing its denial on the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the
offense was not supported by the record. Following our review, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.

The Defendant, Darrius Levon Robinson, appeals from his guilty-pleaded conviction for attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2018)(second degree murder); 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt). The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the agreed upon eight-year, Range I sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the court erred by denying alternative sentencing and
abused its discretion by failing to consider appropriate sentencing factors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Gemeyal Strowder, entered an open plea to aggravated robbery, and the
trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court failed to consider applicable
mitigating factors. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Uel Pearson, was convicted by a Gibson County jury of first-degree murder,
attempted first-degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a
dangerous felony after having been previously convicted of a dangerous felony for which
he received an effective term of life imprisonment plus thirty years. On appeal, the
defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial
court erred in excluding the recorded interviews of two witnesses; and (3) the trial court
erred in denying his motion for new trial based on juror misconduct. After reviewing the
record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Rashard Fair, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to voluntary
manslaughter and received a three-year sentence to be served as one year in confinement
followed by two years on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court
erred by denying his requests for judicial diversion and full probation and that the trial
court should have disqualified itself because the trial court’s impartiality might reasonably
be questioned. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the trial court erred by failing to address fully on the record its reasons for
denying judicial diversion and full probation. We also conclude that the trial court’s
statements during the sentencing hearing, particularly the trial court’s comments about
judicial diversion for the crime of voluntary manslaughter and the trial court’s decision to
increase the Defendant’s sentence of confinement in response to defense counsel’s request
for bond pending appeal, call into question the trial court’s impartiality in this case.
Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for
a new sentencing hearing, at which another judge shall preside, to determine the length and
manner of service of the Defendant’s sentence.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Gavin Quaedvlieg, of rape. The Defendant appeals, contending that the prosecutor impermissibly commented upon his silence at trial during the State's rebuttal closing argument and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on this issue. The State argues that the Defendant has waived plenary review of this issue and that he is not entitled to plain error relief. In his reply brief, the Defendant counters that he has not waived plenary review and that, in any event, he is entitled to plain error relief. We conclude that the Defendant has waived plenary review and that he is not entitled to plain error relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

The Appellant appeals his convictions of voluntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment
with a deadly weapon, and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon for which he
received an effective sentence of twenty-seven years’ confinement. On appeal, the
Appellant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (2)
the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum within-range sentences and
ordering that they be served consecutively. Though he also challenges the trial court’s
failure to include reckless homicide as a lesser included offense of first degree murder and
the allegedly inconsistent verdicts, he has waived these issues by failing to file a motion
for new trial. After review of the preserved issues, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court.

I agree with the majority that the trial court properly imposed maximum,
consecutive sentences. I write separately to explain why, in contrast to the analysis
undertaken in the lead opinion, my analysis does not deprive the trial court of the
presumption of reasonableness based upon the court’s having considered the facts of the
crimes and having observed that they demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Defendant’s culpability exceeded that required for the verdicts returned by the jury.
The majority characterizes the court’s comments as a “strong reliance on [the court’s]
personal disagreement with the jury’s verdict.”

A Madison County jury found Defendant, Bobby Neil Mathis, Jr., guilty as charged of one count of rape of a child and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child. The trial court merged the two counts and sentenced Defendant to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues he is entitled to a new trial because the State failed to elect offenses for the two counts presented to the jury, the trial court erred in failing to issue a modified unanimity instruction, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdicts. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Antwain Tapaige Sales, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s order dismissing his Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Shaun Dewayne Patton, appeals his Robertson County Circuit Court conviction of evading arrest, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Branden Eric Michael Delong, appeals the Chester County Circuit Court’s
ordering him to serve his ten-year sentence in confinement after revoking his probation,
arguing that the trial court should have elected to place him back on supervised probation.
Based on our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s probation
but reverse the court’s placing his original ten-year sentence into effect and remand the
case to the trial court for findings related to the appropriate consequence for that revocation.

The Petitioner, Joseph Wilson, was convicted in 2001 by a Madison County Circuit Court
jury of a number of offenses, including attempted second degree murder and three counts
of aggravated rape, based on his having raped and cut the throat of a woman during his
participation with accomplices in burglarizing her home. In February 2022, the Petitioner
filed a petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, Tennessee
Code Annotated section 40-30-301, et. seq., for DNA analysis of the sexual assault kit, the
knife used to cut the victim’s throat, the clothing the victim was wearing at the time of the
assault, and assorted other items recovered from the bathroom where the sexual assault
occurred, asserting that “significant technological developments in forensic methodologies
over the last fifteen years [have occurred] that may now make it possible to conclusively
identify the true perpetrator[.]” Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the
petition, finding that the Petitioner had not shown there was a reasonable probability that
he would not have been prosecuted or convicted or that new DNA testing would resolve
an issue that had not been previously resolved. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the
post-conviction court erred in finding that the Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements
for DNA analysis pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. The State concedes
that DNA analysis of the sexual assault kit and the knife is warranted but argues that it is
not warranted for the other pieces of evidence. We agree with the State that DNA analysis
is warranted for the sexual assault kit and unwarranted for the items collected from the
bathroom and for the victim’s clothing that was not collected as part of the sexual assault
kit. However, we disagree that DNA analysis is warranted for the knife. Accordingly, we
reverse the denial of the request for DNA analysis of the sexual assault kit but affirm the
denial of the request for DNA analysis of the knife and additional items. Thus, we affirm
in part, reverse in part, and remand for entry of an order for DNA testing consistent with
this opinion.

The pro se petitioner, Tut Mayal Tut, appeals the summary dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated rape, alleging that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. Discerning no error, we affirm the summary dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

A Tipton County jury found the defendant, Kevin Scott Pendleton, guilty of possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon for which he received a sentence of ten years in confinement.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s conviction.