APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Darrel Dean Hochhalter, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of six counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and one count of rape.  He was sentenced to five years for each count of sexual battery by an authority figure and twelve years for the rape conviction.  The court ordered that two of the sentences for sexual battery by an authority figure and the sentence for rape be served consecutively, for an effective term of twenty-two years.  On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in admitting the forensic interview of the victim at trial; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to twenty-two years in confinement.  After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.  However, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 7 to reflect the rape conviction as a Class B felony.

The defendant, Zantuan A. Horton, appeals the revocation of his probationary sentence, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner, Michael A. Dodson, entered open pleas of guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of aggravated rape, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a felony.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a mixture of concurrent and consecutive sentences which resulted in an effective sentence of 86 years at 100% service.  The judgments were affirmed on appeal.  State v. Michael Antonio Dodson, No. M2010-01047-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 5831759 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 21, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. April 20, 2012).  He filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and dismissed the petition.  Petitioner has timely appealed, and following a review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Debra L. Heath, has appealed the Morgan County Criminal Court’s denial of her motions to suppress evidence obtained during searches of her property. The appellate record, however, does not contain a motion for new trial, a transcript from a motion for new trial hearing, or an order denying a motion for new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that the issue presented herein has been waived. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Appellant, Lederrius Thomas, was convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. The trial court sentenced appellant to life for his first degree murder conviction and to fifteen years for his attempted first degree murder conviction, to be served concurrently. Appellant now challenges his convictions, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove premeditation and that the trial court erred in issuing a supplemental jury instruction regarding the element of premeditation. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, James Andrew Paige, pled guilty to one count of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony.  He received a five-year sentence as a Range II offender with the trial court to determine the manner of service.  The trial court ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in incarceration.  On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Roy Len Rogers, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, and reckless endangerment. State v. Roy Len Rogers, No. E2011-02529-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5371987, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2014). The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the first degree murder conviction and sentenced petitioner to a mandatory life sentence for the murder conviction and to a concurrent term of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the reckless endangerment conviction. Id. This court upheld petitioner's conviction on direct appeal. Id. The pro se petitioner filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged numerous infractions of the trial court, trial counsel, and the State. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, stating that the issues had been addressed in petitioner's direct appeal. On appeal, petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without appointing counsel. Following our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Aggrieved of his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, carjacking, reckless endangerment, and three counts of aggravated assault, the defendant appeals.  He claims that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based upon a violation of his right to a speedy trial; (2) the trial court denied his right to due process of law by failing to rule on his pretrial motions; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault; (4) his conviction of reckless endangerment is void because that offense was not a lesser included offense of the charged offense of aggravated assault; (5) the dual convictions of aggravated robbery and carjacking violate principles of double jeopardy; (6) he was denied the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him; (7) the trial court’s failure to enforce its subpoenas denied him the right to compulsory process; (8) the trial court should have either excluded certain evidence or granted the defendant’s motion for a continuance; (9) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress certain evidence; (10) the trial court erred by failing to exclude an out-of-court identification of the defendant; (11) the trial court erred by failing to order the production of certain evidence; and (12) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences.  Because felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, the defendant’s conviction of that offense is reversed, and that count is remanded for a new trial on the remaining lesser included offense of assault.  We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The defendant, Donald W. Higgins III, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated child neglect, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the victim’s injuries, that the trial court erred by refusing to play at trial a portion of his recorded pretrial interview with the police, that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that a violation of the duty to report was a lesser included offense of aggravated child neglect, and by imposing a Range II sentence.  Because the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of aggravated child neglect, that conviction is reversed, and the charge is dismissed.

Appellant, Bradley Dale Felton, pleaded guilty to attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and received an eight-year sentence, suspended to probation after serving one year in custody.  A probation violation warrant was filed, and the trial court sustained the violation and ordered appellant to serve fifteen weekends in jail and extended his probation by one year.  Appellant was subsequently arrested on a capias warrant for failing to serve his weekends in a consecutive manner, and following a revocation hearing, the trial court ordered his sentence into execution.  Appellant now appeals the judgment of the trial court, arguing that he was never ordered to serve his weekends consecutively.  The State concedes that appellant is correct and that the trial court should be reversed.  Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Dominique Ramell Jarrett, entered a guilty plea to carjacking, a Class B felony, and received the agreed-upon sentence of eight years with the trial court to determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and ordered appellant to serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. It is from this judgment that he now appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Wesley Couch, was found guilty by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class D felony.  See T.C.A. § 39-17-433 (2014).  The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years’ confinement, to be served consecutively to a Coffee County sentence and any other existing sentences.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) his sentence is excessive and contrary to law.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Daniel H. Jones, is currently serving an effective sentence of thirty-one years for a multitude of convictions. In October 2014, Defendant filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, alleging that his aggregate sentence is illegal because it exceeds the maximum sentence for a Range I offender convicted of a Class B felony. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, finding that Defendant had failed to state a colorable claim. Upon our thorough review of the record, we determine that Defendant has not presented a colorable claim for relief. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court in full.

The petitioner, Robert Guerrero, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2008 Maury County Circuit Court jury convictions of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated assault, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred by excluding witness testimony and by exhibiting bias. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, James Thomas, Jr., was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated rape and domestic assault. A jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of 16 years and 6 months. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated rape because Defendant was not “armed with” a weapon; 2) the trial court erred by overruling defense counsel’s objection to a detective’s testimony regarding the victim’s credibility; and 3) the prosecutor improperly commented on the victim’s credibility. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the entire record in this case, we conclude that although the evidence is legally sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions, the trial court should not have allowed the detective to testify regarding the victim’s credibility, and the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument constitute plain error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial.

The Defendant claims the evidence was not sufficient for the jury to convict him of possession of .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school.  He also claims the trial court as the thirteenth juror erred in not granting his motion for new trial.  After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Marika Lyn Foster, appeals the trial court’s order requiring her to serve the balance of her sentence in confinement after the revocation of her probation.  She argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not extending the length and modifying the conditions of her probation.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Russell Lee Maze, is appealing the order of the trial court denying his “Motion for Order Correcting Error in Judgment.”  The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.  Said motion is hereby granted.

The Defendant, Corey Eugene Huddleston, pleaded guilty to escape, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years, suspended to supervised probation.  This conviction was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence the Defendant was serving at the time of his escape from the Dickson County Jail.  A violation of probation warrant was issued for the Defendant’s arrest based upon multiple violations of probation rules.  After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation sentence and ordered service of the balance of the sentence in confinement.  The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court’s decision to fully revoke his probation sentence was arbitrary.  After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant, Shon Q. Blanks, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s revocation of his probation and the court’s imposition of incarceration instead of granting another alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Tony Samuel, filed an untimely notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Following our review, we conclude that the interest of justice does not warrant a waiver of the notice requirement because the petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for relief. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as untimely.

The Defendant, David Hugh Crumley, pled nolo contendere to two counts of vehicular homicide and received an effective eight-year sentence under the terms of the agreement. Thereafter, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing based upon the nature and circumstances of the offenses combined with the Defendant's lack of remorse and his past criminal history involving alcohol and drugs. The Defendant appeals, arguing that he is a suitable candidate for alternative sentencing pursuant to the statutory considerations outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C). Following our review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's alternative sentencing decision. Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed.

Defendant, Rafael Grissom, pled guilty to burglary, aggravated burglary, and robbery.  He was sentenced to two years for the burglary conviction, fifteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction, and fifteen years for the robbery conviction.  The trial court ordered Defendant to serve the two-year sentence in incarceration, while the fifteen-year sentences were ordered to be served on Community Corrections consecutively to the sentence for the burglary conviction but concurrently with each other.  Defendant received determinate release after serving a portion of his two-year sentence.  A violation of probation warrant and a violation of Community Corrections warrant were filed against Defendant.  After a hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve the sentences as initially imposed.  Defendant has appealed this decision.  After our review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.  As a result, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Williamson County grand jury indicted appellee, Kathy L. Bartlett, for driving under the influence of an intoxicant.  The charge was dismissed pretrial after the trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss.  The State appeals the trial court’s granting of the motion and argues that the trial court misapplied the law relating to lost or destroyed evidence. Following a thorough review of the record, we reverse the ruling of the trial court, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The appellant, Damascus Willingham, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to review and modify his sentences. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal.