APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In a plea agreement encompassing several cases, the Defendant, Michael Anthony Smith, pleaded no contest to one count of theft of property valued over $1,000, one count of sale of a Schedule II drug, one count of sale of a Schedule IV drug, and one count of theft of property valued less than $500. In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed several charges against him. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of nine years to be served on supervised probation. It also ordered that he successfully complete the 23rd Judicial Drug Court Program and pay restitution. Subsequently, the Defendant’s probation officer filed a warrant, alleging that he had ceased to participate in the 23rd Judicial Drug Court Program. At a hearing, the Defendant admitted the violation, and the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The appellant, Terrance E. Kindall, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revoking his community corrections sentence for carjacking and ordering that he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appellant was statutorily ineligible for community corrections. Therefore, the appellant’s community correction sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the illegal sentence was a bargained-for element of the appellant’s plea agreement.  

In this interlocutory appeal, Susan Gail Stephens (“the Defendant”) challenges the prosecutor‟s denial of her application for pretrial diversion. She asks this court to remand the case to the prosecutor with instructions that the Defendant be granted pretrial diversion. She also asks us to instruct the prosecutor to grant pretrial diversion nunc pro tunc to the Defendant‟s 2012 update to her application for pretrial diversion. Upon review, we find that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the denial of pretrial diversion. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court with instructions that the Defendant be granted pretrial diversion upon the terms and conditions of the diversion to be established by the trial court. However, we decline to instruct that pretrial diversion be granted nunc pro tunc to 2012.

Gary Hamilton (“the Defendant”) seeks interlocutory review of the district attorney general‟s denial of his application for pretrial diversion and the trial court‟s affirmance of that denial. The Defendant, a former teacher‟s assistant, was charged with assault after engaging in an altercation with a student at the school where he was employed. The district attorney general denied the Defendant‟s application for pretrial diversion. The Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the trial court, challenging the denial, and the trial court upheld the district attorney general‟s decision. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the district attorney general abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion and that the trial court erred when it found no abuse of discretion. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we hold that the trial court did not properly review the district attorney general‟s decision to deny pretrial diversion. Additionally, although the district attorney general considered all the relevant pretrial diversion factors and did not consider any irrelevant factors, the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the denial of pretrial diversion. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with instructions that the Defendant be granted pretrial diversion.

The petitioner, Phillippe Rogers, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2008 Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of both conspiracy to sell and possession with intent to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Fred Calvin Lee, pleaded guilty to two counts of delivery of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine, Class B felonies. See T.C.A. § 39-17-417 (Supp. 2013) (amended 2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to serve concurrent terms of ten years for each conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court failed to consider all of the relevant sentencing factors and erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant stands convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, fourth offense, and driving on a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license, second offense. The trial court sentenced appellant to an effective eighteen-month sentence, suspended to supervised probation after serving 150 days in confinement. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court violated the Tennessee Rules of Evidence and appellant's Equal Protection rights by limiting appellant's cross-examination of Officer Norris regarding any racial bias or any disciplinary action the police department levied against Officer Norris due to racially-biased language. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Wayne Sanders, was charged with aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant argues that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Clark Derrick Frazier, challenges the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis.  On appeal, the Petitioner argues that, had he known about the results from the DNA analysis performed on items found at the scene, he would have elected not to plead guilty.  After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the Petitioner failed to prove that the results from the DNA analysis were newly discovered evidence or that he was without fault in failing to present the evidence at the proper time.  Additionally, we conclude that, even if the evidence was newly discovered, the Petitioner failed to establish that it may have resulted in a different judgment.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Appellant, Tarojee M. Reid, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, and as part of the plea, the parties agreed to submit the issue of restitution to the trial court.  Following the hearing, the trial court ordered that appellant pay $6,895 in restitution to the victim.  Appellant now challenges that order on the following grounds:  (1) the trial court failed to order a presentence report prior to the restitution hearing; (2) the trial court failed to make specific findings with regard to appellant’s ability to pay restitution; and (3) the trial court improperly included the value of property that was not listed in the indictment when some items of property were specifically listed.  Following our review, we reverse the award of restitution and remand for another restitution hearing consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, William Brian Brown, pleaded guilty to one count of theft of property valued more than $10,000, and one count of vandalism valued over $1,000. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court placed the Defendant on judicial diversion for six years, to be served on supervised probation. The Defendant agreed to pay restitution to the victims at a minimum of $250 per month. Almost a year later, the State filed a motion to set aside and terminate the order of judicial diversion, which the trial court granted. The trial court revoked the Defendant's judicial diversion, held a sentencing hearing, and sentenced the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of five years of probation and to pay $100 per month in restitution. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court did not follow proper procedure when it revoked his judicial diversion and that the trial court erred when it revoked his judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The Petitioner, Rodney Bates, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion. The State concedes that this case should be reversed and remanded to the trial court. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Christopher M. Mimms, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his Montgomery County Circuit Court jury convictions of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within a drug-free school zone, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Kassy Janikowski, pleaded guilty to second degree murder, and agreed to a sentence of thirty years, to be served at 100%. The Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed her motion because her sentence contravenes the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. After review, and for the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Terry L. Glenn, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Courts summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1989 convictions for first degree burglary and grand larceny and his effective twenty-five-year sentence. He contends that the judgments are void. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The petitioner, Corey Alan Bennett, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief without the opportunity to present evidence at a hearing. The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of attempted especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and four counts of aggravated stalking. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received a ten-year Range I sentence in the Department of Correction. The petitioner filed an untimely post-conviction petition asserting an involuntary guilty plea based on the ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence in the form of recanted testimony of a witness. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in its summary dismissal because due process requires that he be afforded a hearing. Following review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The Defendant, Frederick Anderson, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping; three counts of aggravated robbery; one count of aggravated burglary; two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; and one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony. He received an effective sentence of sixty years’ incarceration. The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial judge should have recused himself from the Defendant’s sentencing; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping as mandated by State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012); (3) whether the trial court erred by not merging the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous offense; (4) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce excerpts of the jailhouse phone calls between the Defendant and his wife; (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to an effective sixty years’ incarceration; and (6) whether the cumulative effect of the errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.