APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Robert Dwight Davis, alias (“the Defendant”), pleaded guilty to one count each of possession with intent to sell cocaine with priors, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal impersonation. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of sixteen years, to be suspended on “enhanced probation.” Upon the filing of a probation revocation warrant, the Defendant was taken into custody, and a revocation hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence in confinement. The Defendant timely appealed the trial court’s ruling. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Matthew Jackson, appeals from the Lake County Circuit Court’s order denying his requested habeas corpus relief. In his petition, Petitioner attacked his convictions for two counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of aggravated robbery. He was convicted following his entry of guilty pleas in the Robertson County Circuit Court in 2001. The record shows there were no agreements as to sentencing except the parties agreed all sentences would be served concurrently. In this habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserts he was sentenced to an illegal sentence because the trial court did not inform him of the following consequences of his guilty pleas: (a) mandatory registration as a sex offender; and (b) mandatory sentence of community supervision for life in addition to incarceration. Petitioner also sought habeas corpus relief on the ground that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. The trial court denied Petitioner habeas corpus relief to the extent of not setting aside the convictions or the sentences. However, the trial court remanded the cases to the Robertson County Circuit Court for entry of corrected judgments for the aggravated rape convictions regarding registration as a sexual offender and community supervision for life. We affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lake County.

Petitioner, Steven Anderson, filed what he designated was his fourth petition for habeas corpus relief attacking his 1994 convictions for aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, and second degree murder. The convictions were the result of guilty pleas pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement resulting in an effective sentence of 50 years’ incarceration. The State filed a motion for summary dismissal because the claims had been brought three previous times, and no colorable claim was alleged. The habeas corpus trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition for habeas corpus, and also a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The coram nobis petition is not in the appellate record. Petitioner appeals, and after a thorough review, we affirm pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Defendant-Appellant, Michael Anthony Foster, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. The trial court merged the reckless endangerment conviction with the aggravated assault conviction and sentenced Foster to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Foster argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for aggravated assault and that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment showing that Foster was charged with and convicted of aggravated assault pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iii), which is a Class C felony.

Jimmie R. Robinson, Sr., (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to second degree murder after he shot and killed his son-in-law. The plea agreement provided for a sentence of seventeen years and six months in prison. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief on the grounds that his guilty plea was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was constitutionally infirm. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Herlana Brewer, challenges the trial court’s revocation of her community corrections sentence, imposition of full incarceration, and increase to the length of her effective sentence. Specifically, she contends that the trial court did not follow the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-210 in revoking her community corrections sentence and improperly increased the length of her sentence on one of the offenses based upon her extensive criminal history and behavior. Upon consideration of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Andre De La Rey Rossouw, pleaded guilty in 2001 to stalking. On July 27, 2012, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis arguing that his guilty plea was constitutionally invalid. Following a hearing, the coram nobis court denied the petition, and the Petitioner timely appealed. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Wayne Charles Green (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to theft of property of $60,000 or more.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a sentence of ten years. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered this sentence to be served in incarceration and ordered the Defendant to pay restitution of $123,901.22. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying probation or other alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Fernandez Deon Davenport (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ habeas corpus regarding his conviction of second degree murder. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and this appeal followed. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Erique Richardson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of being a felon in possession of a handgun, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. § 39-17-1307 (2010) (amended 2013). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to three years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court denied his right to counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Deshundric Dennis, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated assault, for which he received a three-year Range I sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellant, Jimmie Lee Reeder, pled guilty in the Cheatham County Circuit Court to two counts of domestic assault and received consecutive sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served on supervised probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered that he serve the balance of his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court improperly combined his probation revocation hearing with a sentencing hearing for additional convictions and that the trial court should have dismissed the probation revocation proceeding because it violated his rights to due process and a speedy trial. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The Petitioner, Antonio Dwayne Johnson, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and resulting twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, David Neal Davis, was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury on four counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. The trial ended in a mistrial. Petitioner was subsequently charged in a superseding indictment with two counts of rape of a child, eight counts of aggravated sexual battery, solicitation of a minor, and attempted aggravated sexual battery. Petitioner was convicted of rape of a child, attempted rape of a child, seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of child abuse, and one count of attempted solicitation of a minor. See State v. David Neal Davis, No. M2009-00691-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1631828 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 19, 2011), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Aug. 31, 2011). He was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty years. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Id. at *1. Among other things, Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a lengthy post-conviction hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to show clear and convincing evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that he was otherwise entitled to post-conviction relief. Petitioner appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court improperly denied relief where trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) requesting a mistrial; (2) failing to adequately investigate the case, including failing to call certain witnesses at trial; (3) failing to request mental health records of the victim; (4) failing to use the prior recorded statement of the victim at trial; (5) failing to object to testimony regarding evidence of other crimes not charged in the indictment; (6) failing to properly cross-examine the mother of the victim; and (7) failing to object to the State’s usage of the video interview of Petitioner. Additionally, Petitioner complains that the post-conviction court improperly determined that one of Petitioner’s issues was not proper for post-conviction relief and that the cumulative effect of all the errors at trial did not violate Petitioner’s rights. After a thorough review of the record, we determine Petitioner failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
 

In the October 2011 term, Appellant, Mohammed Rafiqul Islam, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated burglary, and four counts of violation of an order of protection. Appellant pled guilty to two counts of kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of violating an order of protection. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in setting the length of the sentence, in denying alternative sentencing, and in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner filed pro se a writ of error coram nobis seeking relief from his first degree murder and robbery convictions. The trial court summarily denied relief and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The defendant, William Cole Comer, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of driving under the influence, failure to stop, and possession of drug paraphernalia, and his bench conviction of violating the implied consent law, claiming that the trial court erred by permitting the arresting officer to testify as an expert witness for purposes of admitting a cocaine field test. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In 2011, the Maury County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Michael Wiss, for harassment by the electronic phone communication of text messaging. A jury convicted Appellant of harassment. He was then sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days and ordered to pay a $2500 fine. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence presented by the State at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction.
 

The Defendant, Laythaniel Haney, Jr., was convicted by a Cocke County Criminal Court jury of the delivery of a controlled substance and received a fifteen-year sentence as a career offender. In this delayed appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by finding that 1) he was not prejudiced by jurors’ falling asleep during the trial and 2) he was not prejudiced by his being under the influence of drugs at the trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Loren Janosky, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his 2003 convictions of aggravated rape and especially aggravated kidnapping. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Michael Davis, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of second degree murder, challenging both the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on accident. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Carlos Rice, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, David Wayne Richards, pled guilty in the Hawkins County Criminal Court to possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with intent to deliver. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years, one day with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court ordered that the appellant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion or alternative sentencing. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

The Defendant, Adonta Lasha Griggs, appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order of incarceration. The Defendant contends (1) that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections sentence because there was not “sufficient evidence” for the trial court to conclude a violation occurred and (2) that even if a violation occurred, the trial court abused its discretion by placing his original sentence into effect, instead of ordering a sentence of split confinement. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentence.

The Defendant, Chavis Ricardo Douglas, pled guilty to possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of between one-half ounce and ten pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, felon in possession of a weapon, and two counts of possession or casual exchange of marijuana. After the entry of his guilty plea, but before sentencing, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied after a hearing. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of forty-two years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred when it did not find a "fair and just reason" to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea. After a thorough review of the applicable law and the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.