APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Phillip Pye, appeals the Maury County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that due process concerns should toll the one-year statute of limitations to allow review of his underlying claims. Because the Petitioner has failed to prove any grounds upon which to toll the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Anthony Xen Maples, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of second offense driving under the influence (“DUI”), claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the fine imposed by the trial court was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Tommy Higdon, was convicted by a Campbell County Criminal Court jury of three counts of reckless endangerment, Class A misdemeanors, assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-13-101, 39-13-103, 39-16-602 (2010). He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for the reckless endangerment and assault convictions and six months for the resisting arrest conviction, all to be served onprobation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) his Fifth Amendment rights were violated because the indictment was improperly amended and a defect existed in the grand jury proceedings, (2) he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him, (3) his right to a speedy trial was violated, (4) his three reckless endangerment convictions violate principles of double jeopardy, and (5) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Randall Turner, filed a petition in the Hamilton County Criminal Court, seeking post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the petition because it was untimely. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the trial court’s ruling. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Jefferson County Circuit Court Jury found the appellant, Glenn Lemual Stepp, guilty of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and in violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-five years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his attempted first degree murder conviction, contending that the State failed to prove premeditation. The appellant also complains about the twenty-five-year sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Joseph P. Lubecke, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Sullivan County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated assault and felony reckless endangerment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Brian Roberson, appeals from his jury conviction for facilitation of first-degree premeditated murder. Specifically, he contends (1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing, over the objection of defense counsel, a witness’s preliminary hearing testimony to be admitted as substantive evidence at trial under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule; and (3) that consecutive sentencing was improperly imposed. After reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Hank Wise, was indicted on one count of premeditated first degree murder for the death of the victim, Benjamin Goeser. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. Following a bench trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years for the offense. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by failing to find him not guilty by reason of insanity; and (2) that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Charles Damien Darden, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s denial of his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Alternative Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in Alternative Petition[] for Writ of Error Coram Nobis” requesting relief from his 1996 conviction for felony murder and his resulting life sentence. The Petitioner contends that his life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution as discussed in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Akil Jahi a.k.a. Preston Carter, appeals the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief regarding his convictions for two counts of felony murder and sentences of death. The Petitioner contends that (1) he is intellectually disabled and, ineligible for the death penalty; (2) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at both his original trial and resentencing hearing; (3) the death penalty is unconstitutional; and (4) the cumulative effect of all errors warrants relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of assault and child neglect, both Class A misdemeanors. He was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the defendant argues that his sentences are excessive and that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. After carefully reviewing the record de novo to determine if the trial court’s sentencing decisions can be upheld, we conclude that no reversible error was committed. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Defendant, Mario Johnson, was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of misdemeanor reckless endangerment. All verdicts were merged into a single conviction for aggravated assault, and the Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that an instruction on self-defense, which he requested, should have been included in the final charge to the jury. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. In my view, the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion. The only mention of judicial diversion by the trial court was after the court imposed the sentence in this case. In somewhat of an afterthought, the trial court stated, “I guess, I didn’t state it, but the application for diversion is denied.” Unlike judicial diversion cases in which this court has reversed and remanded due to the trial court’s failure to fully consider, explain or weigh the judicial diversion factors, see e.g., State v. Lewis, 978 S.W .2d 558, 567 (Tenn. Crim. App.1997); State v. Sean Nauss, No. E2011-00002-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 988139 at * 4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar 22, 2012) (collecting cases), the trial court here failed even to consider the Defendant for judicial diversion. State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (concluding that “the trial judge abused his discretion by failing even to consider the defendant’s personal eligibility for judicial diversion”). On this meager record, the trial court’s denial of diversion cannot be cloaked with a presumption of reasonableness. Moreover, the record hardly assists this court in determining the appropriateness of the trial court’s denial of diversion as there was no proof other than the presentence report at the sentencing hearing. To uphold the denial of judicial diversion in this case would render consideration of the judicial diversion factors in all future cases a complete nullity. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing.

Defendant, Christopher Deon’Dre Jones, was charged in a four-count indictment returned by the Madison County Grand Jury with aggravated burglary, assault, evading arrest, and vandalism. Following a trial, the jury acquitted Defendant of aggravated burglary and assault, but found him guilty as charged of misdemeanor evading arrest and misdemeanor vandalism. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 11 months and 29 days of incarceration in the county jail for each conviction. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of the offense of evading arrest. Defendant assigns no error to his conviction of vandalism. After a thorough review of the briefs and the record we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Zachary Ross Hendrixson, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $10,000, and the trial court sentenced him, as a Range II offender, to serve a six-year sentence consecutive to a ten-year sentence he was required to serve in Dekalb County. The trial court suspended the Defendant’s sentence, ordering that the Defendant serve six years on probation after his release from Dekalb County. The trial court held a hearing on restitution, after which it ordered the Defendant to pay $60,000, at a rate of $833.33 per month after he was released from prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it set the amount of his restitution because the amount is not reasonable. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that no error exists. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Anthony Williams, of first degree premeditated murder, aggravated assault, and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court ordered a total effective sentence of life imprisonment plus six years. The Petitioner appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court. State v. Anthony Williams, No. M2007-01385-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 564231 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 5, 2009) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2009). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Bernabe Rodriguez, has appealed the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to sever the counts in his indictment. The Defendant filed a motion to sever, and the trial court denied the motion. The appellate record, however, does not contain a transcript of the hearing on the Defendant’s motion to sever. Our review of the record reveals that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Sarah Rebekah Hodges, appeals from her Washington County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of eight counts of forgery, one count of theft of property valued at more than $10,000 but less than $60,000, and one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, claiming that the trial court erred by denying her bid for judicial diversion and by denying full probation. We discern no error in the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and full probation, but we observe plain error in seven of the defendant’s judgments for forgery. In case number 37513, the trial court attempted to memorialize the defendant’s guilty pleas and the accompanying sentences for all seven counts of forgery contained in the indictment within a single judgment form. Because a separate judgment form is required for each conviction, case number 37513 is remanded to the trial court for entry of a separate judgment form for each conviction of forgery.

The Defendant-Appellee, Mechelle L. Montgomery, was indicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant and for violation of the open container law. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401, -416. She filed a motion to suppress, alleging, inter alia, that she was unreasonably seized and that her arrest lacked probable cause. After a bifurcated hearing on the motion, the trial court took the matter under advisement and requested further briefing from the parties. The trial court subsequently entered a written order granting Montgomery’s motion to suppress. The State appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the investigatory detention of Montgomery was unlawful. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent. There appears to be little dispute about the facts of this case. In my opinion, the totality of the circumstances based on these facts demonstrate that the actions of Deputy Reiman were within the bounds of constitutional reasonableness. Unlike the officer in State v. Moats, 403 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. 2013), Deputy Reiman was careful to pull beside the Defendant’s vehicle in the church parking lot and to not activate his blue lights when he pulled into the church parking lot. As a result, no seizure took place at this point.

The Defendant-Appellee, Shane Eugene McClanahan, was indicted in Case No. 2012-CR-150 for possession of not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver, driving while under the influence of marijuana while accompanied by a child under thirteen years of age, and possession of drug paraphernalia. McClanahan was later indicted in Case No. 2012-CR-193 for driving a motor vehicle on a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license and driving a motor vehicle on a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license, second or subsequent offense. McClanahan’s charges stemmed from evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his vehicle. In a separate case, the Defendant-Appellee, Ricky J. Jones, was indicted in Case No. 2012-CR-147 for the manufacture of marijuana consisting of not less than 100 marijuana plants nor more than 499 marijuana plants, possession of not less than ten pounds, one gram nor more than seventy pounds of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jones was later indicted in Case No. 2012-CR-268 for money laundering. Jones’s charges stemmed from evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant that substantially relied on the evidence recovered during the warrantless search of McClanahan’s vehicle. McClanahan and Jones filed motions to suppress the physical evidence recovered in their cases. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted McClanahan’s and Jones’s motions to suppress and dismissed their indictments. In this appeal as of right, the State argues that the trial court erred in granting McClanahan’s suppression motions and in dismissing his cases. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments

I write separately because my review and interpretation of the record leads me to a different conclusion that those reached by my colleagues in their reasoned and well-written opinions. While I do concur with the results reached by Judge McMullen, I do so based upon different reasoning as herein expressed. Because I do agree with her conclusion, Judge McMullen writes as the majority.

The Defendant, Adam Sharp, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s orders revoking his community corrections sentences for his automobile burglary conviction in case number 92782 and his aggravated burglary and reckless endangerment convictions in case number 95696. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his effective eight-year sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s orders granting the suppression motions filed by Defendant Jones and Defendant McClanahan, reverse the orders of dismissal of the cases, and reinstate the charges for further proceedings. Since the search of Defendant McClanahan was a different search than the one challenged by Defendant Jones, I will discuss each Defendant separately. Initially though it is necessary for me to specifically address a portion of Judge McMullen’s lead opinion. The State filed separate Notices of Appeal for Defendant Jones and Defendant McClanahan, so the issue of the trial court’s order suppressing all evidence seized pursuant to execution of the search warrant at Defendant Jones’ home was preserved for appeal. I acknowledge that the State, for reasons I do not know, in its brief declined to specifically address the issue of the suppression of evidence in Defendant Jones’ case. The trial court’s decision in Defendant Jones’ case rested solely upon the conclusion that the evidence seized as a result of the stop of Defendant McClanahan was illegally seized and therefore could not be used to support probable cause to search Defendant Jones’ home. Perhaps the State assumed that arguing only the facts of Defendant McClanahan’s stop would suffice to address Defendant Jones’ case. Both defendants were represented by the same counsel and both defendants’ cases were included in one brief in this appeal. Despite the fact the State omitted any specific argument about suppression of evidence in Defendant Jones’ case, counsel for Defendants made the following argument in their brief: “All fruits of the stop as initiated by Officer Agee were of the poisonous tree as it pertains to the search of the residence of Ricky Jones. [citations omitted].” Under the circumstances I have no problem procedurally addressing the issue concerning the search warrant for Defendant Jones’ home.

The Petitioner, Harold Tolley, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1998 conviction for first degree murder and his resulting life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by summarily denying relief because he was denied his right to defend himself at the trial by presenting an intoxication defense to show he had diminished capacity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.