APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Shuan Terrell Marsh, appeals his Marshall County Circuit Court jury conviction of third offense possession of a controlled substance, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Courtney Wesley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2013 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In 1991, the Defendant, Anthony Hill, pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of more than 26 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, in case numbers 90-09874 and 90-15702, with agreed concurrent sentences of 7.2 years’ incarceration for each of the two convictions. In 2014, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held the Defendant’s sentences should have been ordered to run consecutively and thus were illegal. The trial court denied the Defendant’s 36.1 motion, holding that his sentences had expired which rendered the issue moot. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred because he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because his illegal sentence was a material component of his plea agreement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, and in accordance with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s recent holding in State v. Adrian R. Brown, __ S.W.3d __, No. E2014-00673-SC-R11-CD, 2015 WL 7748275, at *7 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015), we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The petitioner, Jay Earl Haynes, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his two rape convictions, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Marlon Yarbro, was convicted of selling .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class A felony; simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to twenty-five years at 100% for the Class A felony; two years for the simple possession conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the drug paraphernalia conviction, with all sentences to be served concurrently. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the convictions and remanded for correction of the judgment for simple possession to reflect the conviction as a Class A misdemeanor and a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. Following his convictions, but while his direct appeal was pending, he filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, as best we can understand, that he was being illegally detained because his Class A felony conviction should be served at 35%, rather than 100%; the indictment was defective in stating the offenses with which he was charged; the indictment was defective because it failed “to state the facts of the crime scene;” the judgment violates the plain language requirement of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 17; and the judgment is “absent of Counsel,” resulting in the trial court’s losing jurisdiction and voiding the judgment. The trial court dismissed the motion, determining that the petitioner could not simultaneously maintain a direct appeal and a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We agree and affirm the dismissal of the petition, according to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The petitioner, Gary W. Robinson, III, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that the post-conviction court erroneously found that his petition was untimely filed. Following our review of the briefs of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing the petition.

Defendant, John W. Smith, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1.  Because Defendant has failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the dismissal of the motion.

Petitioner, Charles Everett Lowe-Kelley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel.  He also argues that his consecutive life sentences violate Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012).  We conclude that Petitioner has not proven that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his effective sentence does not violate Miller.  Accordingly, the decision of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Aggrieved of his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of three counts of aggravated robbery, the defendant, Travis Seiber, appeals, arguing that he was deprived of the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, that the trial court erred by permitting the State to use as a demonstrative aid a gun that had not been entered into evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Jeffery Yates, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that he stated a colorable claim for relief in that he received concurrent sentences when consecutive sentences were statutorily required. After review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the defendant’s motion.

The Defendant, Bobby Joe Campbell, entered guilty pleas to two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and two counts of failure to appear, a Class E felony, with the manner and service of his sentence to be determined by the trial court.  See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102, -13-111, -16-609(e).  The trial court merged the aggravated assault convictions and imposed a consecutive term of five years’ incarceration for aggravated assault and one and a half years’ incarceration for each count of failure to appear.  Each count of failure to appear was also ordered to be served consecutively to the other for an effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the Defendant’s sentence is excessive and contrary to law.  Upon our review, we must remand this matter to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for the limited purpose of considering the factors outlined in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995), and determining the propriety of consecutive sentencing for the failure to appear convictions.  In all other respects, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The petitioner, Courtney R. Logan, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his extradition from Tennessee to Mississippi nearly four years after the extradition.  The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now appeals.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jurico Readus, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Leslie Kennedy, appeals her Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of second offense driving under the influence and reckless driving, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Alicia Williams, appeals the summary dismissal of her petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition challenged her 2012 Shelby County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Joseph Thomas, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and by instructing the jury on criminal responsibility, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and that the trial court erred by classifying the defendant as a career offender. We affirm the convictions and sentences but remand for correction of a clerical error in one of the judgments.

The Defendant, Zachary James Pence, was found guilty by an Anderson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated rape of a child, a Class A felony, aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and child abuse, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-531 (2014), 39-15-402 (2010) (amended 2011, 2012), 39-15-401 (2010) (amended 2011). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent terms of sixty years for the aggravated rape of a child conviction, twenty-five years for the aggravated child abuse conviction, and two years for the child abuse conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erroneously permitted inadmissible hearsay evidence, (3) the trial court improperly commented on the evidence, (4) the trial court permitted improper opinion testimony, (5) the trial court improperly instructed the jury, (6) his sentence for the aggravated rape of a child conviction is excessive, and (7) the cumulative effect of the errors entitle him to relief. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Keyvin Lanier Glass, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and failure to appear.  He received an effective sentence of four years, one year in confinement with the remainder suspended to supervised probation.  His probation officer filed a probation violation report based on his breaking three probationary rules, and the trial court subsequently entered an order revoking appellant’s probation and ordering him to serve his full sentence in confinement.  On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Bobby J. Croom, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery convictions. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief because: (1) the State failed to make a proper election of offenses at trial; (2) his convictions violate double jeopardy; (3) his conviction for aggravated sexual battery violates due process; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Keith Trammell, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of theft over $1000, a Class D felony; vandalism over $500, a Class E felony; and two counts of coercion of a witness, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced him as a career offender to twelve years for the theft conviction, six years for the vandalism conviction, and twelve years for each of the coercion convictions. The court ordered the theft and vandalism sentences to be served concurrently to each other and the coercion sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the theft and vandalism sentences, for a total effective sentence of twenty-four years at 60% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him as a career offender and by allowing the State to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Donald Wayne McCall (“the Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Timothy Demond Lambert, appeals from the trial court's dismissal, without an evidentiary hearing, of Defendant's motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Curtiss Carlos Talley, pled guilty in 2002 to aggravated assault and was sentenced to serve five years concurrently with a federal sentence which, apparently, was later imposed. Twelve years later, in 2014, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asking, as we understand, that the court “vacat[e] his state judgment/conviction on the merits and in the interest of justice.” The trial court determined that he had failed to state a claim for coram nobis relief, and we agree. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The appellant, Michael Lee Priest, pled guilty in the Sequatchie County Circuit Court to robbery in case number 2013CR84 and received a four-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court.  As a result of his guilty plea, the trial court revoked a four-year sentence of probation for aggravated assault in case number 2012CR136.  After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve both sentences in confinement.  On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine his mother about conduct that occurred as a juvenile and by not granting his requests for alternative sentencing.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Tony Fulton Wells, was initially charged with first degree (premeditated) murder, and he later pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied. On appeal, he argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was coerced. He also argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to have a hearing to suppress his written confessions; failed to obtain more time for him to consider the plea agreement; failed to interview the petitioner's neighbor; failed to investigate the crime scene; and failed to explain adequately the law or to listen to the petitioner. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.