APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Alonzo Hoskins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his 2019 convictions for felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to request a post-trial inquiry into a juror who had expressed difficulty hearing portions of the trial. The State counters that the post-conviction court correctly denied relief. Based on our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant pled guilty in Williamson County to aggravated vehicular assault and three DUI counts.  The trial court sentenced Defendant to six years in confinement.  Defendant argues on appeal that her sentence is excessive and the trial court abused its discretion in denying alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgment forms as detailed in this opinion

A Maury County jury convicted Destiny Diamond Baxter and Anthony Wayne Sheffield of first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, two counts of felony murder, and abuse of a corpse. Defendant Sheffield was also convicted of possessing a firearm with a prior conviction for a crime of violence and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The jury determined that both Defendants should serve life in prison without the possibility of parole for the homicide offenses. As for the remaining convictions, the trial court sentenced Defendant Baxter to an additional twenty-two years and sentenced Defendant Sheffield to a further thirty-five years. On appeal, both Defendants challenge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support their convictions. Defendant Sheffield also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the Defendants’ cases and admitting photographs of the homicide victim into evidence during the jury’s sentencing phase. Further, Defendant Sheffield argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him for the other convictions by failing to consider the risk and needs assessment, miscalculating the range, and imposing consecutive sentences beyond his life term. Upon our review, we conclude that a harmless error exists in failing to issue a limiting instruction as requested by Defendant Sheffield, and we also remand the judgments for correction of clerical errors. However, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The Petitioner, Latosha Starks-Twilley, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her post-conviction petition, seeking relief from her conviction of first degree premeditated murder and resulting life sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner claims, and the State concedes, that the post-conviction court erred by summarily denying her pro se petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing because the petition alleged a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Based on our review, we reverse and vacate the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case to that court for the appointment of counsel and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Jarrod Dewayne Moore, appeals the Henderson County Circuit Court’s imposition of an effective ten-year sentence in confinement for his drug and firearm-related convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation. Based on our review, we affirm the sentencing determinations of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jasmin Moore, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a robbery and of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(2) (2018) (subsequently amended) (first degree felony murder), 39-13-403 (2018) (especially aggravated robbery). The trial court imposed a life sentence for the first degree murder conviction and a concurrent sentence of sixteen years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss based upon an alleged violation of her right to a speedy trial, (2) the court erred in several evidentiary rulings, (3) the court erred in denying her request for a jury instruction regarding unavailable evidence, (4) the court erred in permitting police recruits to attend the trial, and (5) she should receive a new trial due to the cumulative effect of the alleged trial errors. We affirm the judgments of the criminal court.

The Defendant, Brandon Lee May, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, evading arrest, and criminal trespass, for which he received an effective sentence of fifteen years' incarceration.  On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that his sentence is excessive.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the State asks us to review the trial court’s pretrial suppression of data from the Defendant’s cell phone. Before searching the cell phone, law enforcement officers sought and obtained a search warrant, which a magistrate authorized based upon its finding that probable cause existed to support the search warrant. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found on the phone, and the trial court granted the motion. The State asked for, and the trial court granted, an interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s ruling on the motion. After review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress.

The Petitioner, Clarence Willis Moore1 , appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his Class B felony drug convictions, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to review videotape evidence with him or to convey the State’s plea offer, and that the post-conviction court erred by concluding that the Petitioner was not a credible witness. Because the Petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel was previously determined by the trial court in the Petitioner’s motion for new trial, we conclude that the issue is waived. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The pro se Defendant, Marcus Fitts, attempts to appeal the Sumner County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to remove the sexual offender registry requirement from his judgment of conviction for attempted aggravated sexual battery. Because the Defendant has no grounds to appeal the summary dismissal of his motion, we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Sergei Aleksandrovich Novikov, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second degree murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court erred in ordering a sentence of confinement without making proper findings that the Defendant was not entitled to alternative sentencing. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Sonny Edmund Hudson, Jr., of two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-three years in confinement at 100%. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for the attempted first-degree murder of James Theus. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial

A Dickson County jury convicted the Defendant, Lamisha Lanea Haynes, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction; (2) the trial court improperly excluded testimony about the victim’s prior gun use; (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight; and (4) her sentence is excessive. The Defendant also claims that the cumulative error of these issues warrants relief. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Davarious Montral Taylor, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court.  After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

In 2023, the Defendant, Jeremy Allen Stephens, entered a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated child abuse. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted and that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Royce Scott Earley, confessed to multiple acts of rape against his eightyear-
old daughter, and a jury subsequently convicted him of two counts of rape of a child
(counts one and three), two counts of incest (counts two and four), and one count of
aggravated sexual battery (count five), for which he received an effective sentence of 104
years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant raises three issues for our review: (1)
whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession because it
was not voluntary; (2) whether the State introduced sufficient evidence to corroborate his
confession for counts three through five under the modified trustworthiness standard
outlined in State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014); and (3) whether the trial court
imposed an excessive sentence.1 After review, we affirm.

Herbert Eugene Ewing, Movant, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated
section 39-17-432(h) (2022), seeking resentencing of his guilty-pleaded conviction for
possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within one
thousand feet of a park, for which he was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to
serve the entire minimum twenty-year sentence for a Class B felony. Following a hearing,
the trial court found that it could not resentence Movant to a lower release eligibility
because release eligibility does not affect the length of the sentence and denied the motion.
We grant certiorari to vacate the trial court’s order denying the motion for resentencing
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant, Clarence M. Porter, was convicted by a Loudon County jury of two counts of felony murder, one count of theft of property under $1,000, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. He was also charged with possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, but following a bifurcated trial, that charge was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence for the felony murder, theft, and especially aggravated robbery convictions. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting a hearsay statement by a co-defendant because the State failed to prove that Defendant was involved in a conspiracy with co-defendants; that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because there was no independent proof to corroborate accomplice testimony and the State failed to prove that he was criminally responsible for the actions of his co-defendants or that he independently possessed any criminal intent to commit the charged offenses; that the trial court erred in allowing the State’s lead investigator to reference the Chattanooga Police Department’s “street gangs unit;” and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Following our review of the entire record and the oral arguments and briefs of the parties, we determine that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. Further, following State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223, (Tenn. 2024), because the accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated, we find that the evidence is insufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and dismiss the charges against Defendant.

Petitioner, Antwain Tapaige Sales, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s order summarily dismissing his third state petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that his sentence is void and that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

In this interlocutory appeal, at issue is the appropriate jury instruction to be given in a murder case for a crime committed in 2015 but tried in 2024. In the time between the murder and trial, the Tennessee Supreme Court released an opinion, State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2024), which abrogated the old common-law accomplice-corroboration rule. The State requested the new jury instruction pursuant to Thomas, and the trial court ruled that fairness concerns required the old common-law instruction. The State sought and obtained an interlocutory appeal. On appeal, it asserts that the trial court erred and that the jury should be instructed pursuant to Thomas. After review, we conclude that the Thomas court intended that the new law apply to trials commencing after March 7, 2024. Because the trial for this matter has not yet commenced, the jury in this case shall be instructed in accordance with Thomas and its conclusion regarding the jury instruction about accomplice testimony. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Jeffery Lynn Lane, Jr., was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, driving without a license, and driving without proof of insurance and received an effective twelve-year sentence to be served at eighty-five percent release eligibility. On appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to show he possessed the firearm, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, and that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to introduce evidence of uncharged offenses. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ brief, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dale Steven White, was charged with twelve offenses resulting from his fleeing from the police on three separate occasions on June 13, December 11, and December 13, 2021. The Defendant entered a "blind" plea to each charge on November 16, 2023, and following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-two years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive, that the trial court erred in imposing partially consecutive sentences, and that his judgment forms contain clerical errors. Following our review, we remand for entry of corrected judgments consistent with the trial court's pronouncement of the Defendant's sentence at the sentencing hearing. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, George W. Cosey, pleaded nolo contendere to Class E felony theft and received an agreed one-year sentence. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the Davidson County Criminal Court denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not inform him that, between the time of the offense and Petitioner’s plea, the theft grading statute had been amended. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

A Gibson County jury convicted Defendant, Eric Wayne Herndon, of violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. Defendant received an effective sentence of two years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. After review, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction for violation of an order of protection, and we reverse that judgment and dismiss that conviction accordingly. We also conclude the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking, but we determine that the proof was sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of stalking, which was charged to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking, and we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a conviction for stalking and for resentencing on this modified conviction.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Alonzo Fishback, of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony, for which he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seventy-five years. The Defendant appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed, and he then unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the proven facts of his case did not meet the necessary requirements to be convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court denied this motion, stating that the Defendant’s claim was not colorable under Rule 36.1. The Defendant maintains his argument on appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.