APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Devon Allen Wall, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated kidnapping related to the same incident. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aggravated kidnapping convictions and challenges the trial court’s refusal to deliver a special jury instruction. Relative to his sufficiency challenge, the Defendant contends that there was no significant confinement or removal of the victims and that the aggravated kidnappings were incidental to the underlying crime of aggravated robbery. Regarding his second challenge, the Defendant contends that the requested jury instruction concerning “relatively trivial restraints” provided crucial guidance for the jury on Tennessee’s aggravated kidnapping statute. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted Defendant, Brian Allen Armstrong, of two counts of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and one count of possession of a prohibited
weapon. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective term of fifteen years in the
Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his requested
jury instruction on the defense of necessity. After reviewing the record, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Angela Montgomery, was convicted in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of six counts of rape of a child, for which she received an effective sentence of forty years’ imprisonment to be served at one hundred percent. This court affirmed her convictions, and she filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief. The State then appealed, claiming for the first time that the petition was untimely. This court remanded the case to the post-conviction court to determine whether the Petitioner was entitled to due process tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. The post-conviction court held that she was not and denied the petition as untimely. The Petitioner now appeals contending that she is entitled to due process tolling because, despite her repeated requests, trial counsel failed to provide her with a copy of the trial transcript. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, James Howard Smith, entered nolo contendere pleas to two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of forty years for each of the two rape of a child convictions and ten years for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, resulting in an effective sentence of ninety years. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Billy Joe Nelson, appeals as of right from the Coffee County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for aggravated kidnapping, carjacking, robbery, and aggravated rape. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based upon counsel’s failure to (1) move to suppress the evidence obtained by Petitioner’s arrest, the search of his girlfriend’s mother’s home, and the search of a cell phone he shared with his girlfriend; (2) move to suppress the victim’s identification of Petitioner on a surveillance recording as impermissibly suggestive; (3) investigate DNA evidence or contest the chain of custody of the victim’s rape kit and the DNA standards for the victim and Petitioner; (4) introduce a voice exemplar of Petitioner to prove that the perpetrator’s voice in the background of the victim’s 911 call was not his; and (5) use telephone records to cast doubt on the State’s timeline of events and establish that a witness had reason to lie about Petitioner’s involvement in the offenses. Petitioner also alleges that the State withheld exculpatory evidence relative to the victim’s rape kit and DNA standards for the victim and Petitioner. Following our review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Robert Joseph Atkins, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court
of second degree murder, tampering with evidence, and unlawful possession of a handgun
by a convicted felon and received an effective thirty-one-year sentence. On appeal, he
claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his murder conviction, (2) the trial
court erred by admitting testimony about his prior assault of the victim, (3) the trial court
erred by admitting an unauthenticated video into evidence, (4) the trial court should have
granted a new trial because a police officer, who testified at trial, was the subject of an
internal affairs investigation, (5) the trial court committed plain error by allowing the
medical examiner to testify outside her area of expertise, and (6) he was denied his right to
a fair trial under the cumulative error doctrine. Based upon the oral arguments, the record,
and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Matthew Peter McDonnell, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s
order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve the balance of his four-year
sentence for aggravated assault and vandalism of property valued at more than $1,000 but
less than $2,500. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Joseph Langlinais, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking postconviction
relief from his convictions of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and
attempted rape of a child, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years
in prison. State v. Joseph Langlinais, No. W2016-01686-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1151951
(Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 19, 2018). In this appeal,
the Petitioner argues (1) that the post-conviction court deprived this court of meaningful
appellate review because it failed to consider certain issues as raised in his petition and
failed to provide sufficient findings of fact in its order denying relief; (2) that the Petitioner
was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel under
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658, 104 S. Ct. 2039 (1984), or alternatively,
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984); (3) that trial counsel
was ineffective based on eighteen separate grounds; and (4) that the cumulative effect of
trial counsel’s deficiencies entitles him to relief. After a thorough review of the record, we
conclude that the aggregate effect of trial counsel’s deficiencies requires a new trial.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the post-conviction court, vacate the Petitioner’s
convictions, and remand for a new trial.

After pleading guilty to burglary and theft of property valued at over $10,000, Jeffrey Glenn McCoy, Petitioner, was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of 12 years as a Range III offender to be served consecutively to a sentence from South Carolina. His sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Jeffrey Glynn1 McCoy, No. W2016-01619-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 6507232, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 19, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 23, 2018) (“McCoy I”). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief that was dismissed as untimely. On appeal, the State conceded error and this Court remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings. See Jeffrey McCoy v. State, No. W2019-00574-CCA-R3-PC, 2020 WL 1227304, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2020) (“McCoy II”). On remand, the post-conviction court appointed counsel and an amended petition was filed. Petitioner alleged that trial counsel failed to inform him of his potential sentence, failed to litigate a motion to suppress, failed to present evidence that Petitioner was under the influence of methamphetamine, and failed to present evidence that Petitioner was not the leader in the commission of the offense. The postconviction court denied relief after a hearing, finding that there was no proof Petitioner’s plea was coerced or that any of trial counsel’s actions were deficient. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Knox County jury found the Petitioner, Billy Hill, guilty of second degree murder. He
later filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective
by advising him not to testify at trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding that
trial counsel’s advice was based on a sound strategy developed after thoroughly
investigating the case. On appeal, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the postconviction
court.

After the Petitioner, Karen R. Howell, pled guilty to three counts of first degree felony murder and one count of attempted first degree murder, the trial court sentenced her to serve three consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole plus twenty-five years. Subsequently, she filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021 seeking an analysis of the original murder weapons. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, finding there was no reasonable probability that a fingerprint analysis would result in a more favorable sentence. Upon review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Donald Ray Pennington, Jr.,appeals as of right from the Bradley County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery for which he received an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to (1) provide Petitioner with the discovery materials until after trial; (2) investigate the victim’s school records; and(3)call two witnesses to impeach the credibility of the victim’s mother. Following our review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Kelli M. Cates, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence(“DUI”) after the trial court denied her motion to suppress. As a part of her plea agreement, she sought to reserve five certified questions of law for appeal challenging the legality of the traffic stop leading to her arrest. However, following our review, we conclude that the certified questions are not dispositive of the case and do not clearly identify the scope and limits of the legal issues reserved as required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and the case is dismissed.

The Defendant, Kenneth Benard Hudspeth, was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and two counts of aggravated rape. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(2) (Supp. 1998) (subsequently amended) (felony murder in perpetration of rape); 39-13-210 (1997) (subsequently amended) (second degree murder); and 39-13-205 (1997) (subsequently amended) (aggravated rape). After the appropriate merger, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment plus twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his police statement, and (3) the court erred by ordering consecutive service of his sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Lonell Montez Hartshaw, Defendant, appeals the manner of service of his sentences and
fines imposed by the trial court after he entered guilty pleas to felony evading arrest, driving
under the influence (“DUI”) (second offense), simple possession of a controlled substance,
driving on a revoked license (second offense), speeding, violation of the registration law,
and violation of the window tint law. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion,
we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Eric Williams, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions
of aggravated assault and assault, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions and that the trial court erred by classifying him as a Range II, multiple offender.
Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Demetrice Livingston, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury
of second degree murder and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I offender to
twenty years at 100% in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to his
sentence in a drug case for which he had been sentenced to probation. The Defendant
raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his
conviction; (2) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (3) whether the
State made an improper closing argument by referencing facts not in evidence and making
a comment that impermissibly bolstered the testimony of a State’s witness. Based on our
review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for the trial court to enter an
amended judgment imposing a concurrent sentence.

The Defendant, Jarrett Michael Tolley, pleaded guilty to multiple theft- and fraud-related
charges in the Washington County Criminal Court, for which she received a sentence of
seven years' incarceration suspended to fifteen years on community corrections. The
sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a sentence of two years' incarceration
imposed in an unrelated case in Carter County, which resulted in a sentence of six years on
community corrections, for an effective sentence of twenty-one years to be served on
community corrections. The Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence
pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court denied. On
appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying relief. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Donnie Marquis Tharpe, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s
probation revocation of the five-year, split-confinement sentence he received for his guiltypleaded
convictions for aggravated assault and evading arrest. On appeal, the Defendant
contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance
and by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in
confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Jeremy Jerome Hardison, of first degree
premeditated murder. The Defendant appeals, contending that (1) the trial court erred by
denying the Defendant’s motion to recuse the trial judge; (2) the trial court erred by denying
the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a search
warrant on his residence; (3) the trial court unconstitutionally limited the Defendant’s
ability to cross-examine a witness; (4) the trial court erred by admitting expert ballistics
testimony at trial; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to prove the Defendant’s identity
as the perpetrator. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jeffrey George Tulley, Defendant, pleaded guilty to three counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine, three counts of delivery of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine, and four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. At sentencing, the trial court imposed three concurrent sentences of eleven years on the drug counts and a consecutive four-year sentence for the firearm counts, as a Range I offender, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Eula Beasley, entered a guilty plea in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated robbery (count one) and possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for a crime of violence (count two), for which he received an eight-year sentence for each count with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered these sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Darrin Walker, was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury for two counts of
first degree murder. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty as charged and
sentenced to concurrent life sentences. Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of
the evidence. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm
the judgments of the trial court.