APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, LaKeith Humphrey, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; the trial court erred in granting a special jury instruction; the trial court abused its discretion by allowing some testimony and limiting other testimony; the trial court erred in admitting the murder weapon into evidence; and the cumulative effect of these errors suffices to justify a new trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Elgene Porter aka “Twin,” was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. For these convictions, he received an effective sentence of forty-two years at 100% in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police; (2) the trial court erred in failing to immediately remove a juror once a potential conflict was identified; (3) the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentences. After our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Maury County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Calvin Demetrius Shaw, of simple possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor. During a sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that the appellant had two prior convictions for simple possession and sentenced him to twenty months in confinement for simple possession as a Class E felony pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-418(e). On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him for a Class E felony when the jury found him guilty of a misdemeanor and that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-418(e) is unconstitutional because it allows for enhanced punishment without prior notice. The State concedes that the trial court improperly sentenced the appellant for a Class E felony. We agree and conclude that the case should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

The petitioner, Terry D. Sneed, aggrieved of his convictions of aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and two counts of aiding and abetting aggravated rape for which he received sentences totaling 124 years’ incarceration, filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Following multiple appointments of counsel, amendments to the petition, and other procedural matters spanning over nine years, the post-conviction court denied relief after a full evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by (1) denying his motion to sever his post-conviction hearing from that of his co-defendant, (2) denying his motion to continue the evidentiary hearing based upon the unavailability of two witnesses, and (3) denying relief for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the single allegation that trial counsel failed to introduce evidence of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laboratory report at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, James G. Watson, entered guilty pleas to theft, felony reckless endangerment, and two counts of aggravated assault in the Knox County Criminal Court. He subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Johnson County Criminal Court, which was summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the probationary sentence he received for his theft conviction expired before the trial court revoked his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

This is a direct appeal from a guilty plea pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Defendant, James F. Mason, pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. As part of his plea agreement, the Defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence. Because the Defendant has failed to properly certify his issue for review, the appeal is dismissed.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Reginald Maurice Adkins, was convicted of first degree felony murder, see Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-302, and attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, see Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-12-107(a), -13-403(b). In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of either offense. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, John Griggs, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and attempted rape, for which he received an effective sentence of eleven years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not entered voluntarily and knowingly because he was not informed of his right against compulsory self-incrimination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Mark Alan Deakins, appeals pro se the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by finding that the judgment was not void and by dismissing his petition without an  evidentiary hearing and without appointment of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State appeals the trial court’s order denying jury instructions on lesser included offenses at the Defendant Gussie Willis Vann’s retrial for felony murder. See T.C.A. §39-13-202(a)(2) (1991). The Defendant was originally convicted by a McMinn County jury of felony murder committed in the perpetration of aggravated rape and two counts of incest. He was sentenced to death plus six years’ incarceration. In affirming his convictions on direct appeal, this court, see State v. Gussie Willis Vann, No. 03C01-9602-CC-00066, 1997 WL 309320 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 10, 1997), and the Tennessee Supreme Court, see State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93 (Tenn. 1998), rejected the Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of felony murder. The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court ordered a new trial on grounds unrelated to the issue presented in this appeal. Prior to retrial, the Defendant moved to dismiss his indictment and bar instructions on the lesser included offenses of felony murder arguing, among other things, (1) that principles of double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, and judicial estoppel precluded the State from prosecuting the Defendant on any lesser included offense of felony murder because the “explicit statements” of both this court and the Tennessee Supreme Court “on direct appeal that the trial record was ‘devoid of evidence’ of lesser included offenses were factual determinations, necessary to valid final judgments, from which the government is prohibited from seeking an inconsistent determination” and (2) that “the [original] trial judge’s refusal to instruct on such lesser included offenses was a qualitative determination of the evidence, tantamount to an acquittal and triggering traditional double jeopardy and res judicata [as] to those charges.”Following a hearing, the trial court agreed in part with the Defendant and actually barred retrial on any lesser included offenses of felony murder. The State sought and we granted Rule 9 review to determine “whether constitutional double jeopardy protections bar at the trial the inclusion of lesser included offenses of first degree felony murder.” Upon our review, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, Bobby Joe Rollins, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty-eight years. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402 (aggravated robbery defined). This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Bobby Joe Rollins, No. M2008-00284-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 5427733 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Dec. 31, 2008) (mem.), perm. to appeal dismissed, (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2009). The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because: (1) Trial Counsel misadvised the Petitioner with respect to whether he should testify at his trial; (2) Trial Counsel failed to undertake any meaningful trial preparations with the Petitioner; and (3) Trial Counsel failed to object and request a mistrial when a witness stated that the Petitioner had been in “the pen.” After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The appellant, Douglas Boruff, appeals the Blount County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to discharge a fine that the trial court imposed as part of his punishment for a prior conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, the appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, Scotty Mack Griffith, pled guilty to promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, and to possession of methamphetamine, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-433, 39-17-418 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to six years’ confinement for the promotion conviction and to eleven months, twenty-nine days’ confinement for the possession conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence of full confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Eddie H. Pittman, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued between $500-$1000, a Class E felony, and was sentenced as a career offender to six years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the value of the stolen goods. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Kenneth Alan Steele, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that because of newly discovered DNA evidence, his convictions should be vacated and/or he should be granted a new trial to present evidence of a third-party perpetrator. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition without a hearing and that it applied the wrong standard in making its ruling. We agree that the trial court used the wrong standard; nevertheless, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the majority opinion. I respectfully express my view that the trial court’s “ would not have changed the results” formulation does not necessarily equate to the application of a wrong standard. As the majority opinion notes, Mixon and Vasques formulate the standard for establishing entitlement to coram nobis relief as when the petitioner shows that the new evidence “may have” resulted in a different judgment. See State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527 (Tenn. 2007); State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.3d 661, 672 (Tenn. 1999). One might view the trial court’s formulation in the present case as merely stating the correct standard in the negative. Certainly, the more precise formulation of the opposite of “may have” is “could not have” or “cannot have,” but still the court may have correctly determined that no possibility existed that the result of trial may have been different with the new evidence at play. Obviously, the use of the Mixon-Vasques language would be preferable.

The Petitioner, Gerald Deon Jenkins, entered a best-interest guilty plea to one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony; one count of theft over $500, a Class E felony; one count of theft over $1,000, a Class D felony, and one count of setting fire to personal property, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-210(b), -14-103, -14-105(2)-(3), -14-303(b) (2003). The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to twenty-five years for the second degree murder conviction, two years for the theft over $500 conviction, four years for the theft over $1,000 conviction, and two years for the setting fire to personal property conviction. The court ordered that the terms run concurrently for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner presents the following issues for review: (1) The post-conviction court erred when it found that the Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel; (2) The post-conviction court
“commit[ted] error in finding that the sentence of maximum punishment was correct”; and (3) The trial court committed plain error when it considered the convictions contained in the presentence report, failed to consider “lingering doubt or innocence,” and incorrectly applied enhancement factors. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Dimecos Ichad Jones, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Chris Jones, was charged with one count of first degree murder with respect to victim Donald Munsey; two counts of attempted first degree murder with respect to victims Justin Smith and David Eagan; one count of use of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; and one count of possession of a firearm where alcoholic beverages are served. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of one count of second degree murder; one count of attempted second degree murder with respect to Mr. Smith; one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter with respect to Mr. Eagan; one count of use of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; and one count of possession of a firearm where alcoholic beverages are served. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions on the first three counts; (2) the trial court erred when it excluded testimony of Mr. Munsey’s prior violent acts; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence regarding the Defendant’s recent divorce; (4) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to rehabilitate a witness with his prior consistent statement; and (5) that the Defendant’s rights to trial by jury and due process were violated by the use of sequential jury instructions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Frederick Lamont Moore, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder; first degree murder committed while in the perpetration of a felony (felony murder); aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; and two counts of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the first degree premeditated murder conviction with the felony murder conviction and ordered a sentence of life imprisonment for the resulting conviction. As to the remaining counts, the trial court ordered a sentence of 20 years for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and concurrent sentences of 10 years for each of the tampering with evidence convictions. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to serve his 20-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping consecutively to his life imprisonment sentence for the first degree murder conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Based upon the facts in three cases, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner, Marey Atef Abou-Rahma, Jr., for five counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of felony murder, two counts of first degree murder, and two counts of attempted first degree murder. On February 8, 2008, Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of felony murder. Petitioner was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for the felony murder convictions and sentenced to two, eight-year sentences for the aggravated robbery convictions to be served concurrently to each other and the life sentences. On November 24, 2008, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing among other things that he received ineffective assistance of  counsel and that he did not enter his guilty plea voluntarily and knowingly. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the denial of the postconviction petition.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner, Orlando M. Reames, entered an “open” guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and the State dismissed one count of failure to appear, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102(e)(1), -16-609(e). The trial court  sentenced the Petitioner to twelve years as a Range III, persistent offender. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that Trial Counsel was ineffective because he failed to adequately prepare for the Petitioner’s trial, resulting in the Petitioner feeling coerced to accept the State’s plea offer. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.DAVID H. WELLES,

Following a change of venue, a Giles County jury convicted the Defendant of voluntary manslaughter, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, claiming that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his request for a continuance to secure a material witness to the case; (2) denied his request for a jury instruction on ignorance and mistake of fact; and (3) sentenced him as a Persistent, Range III offender. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Randy Lynn Shelby, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of two counts of aggravated burglary and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping. Following a sentencing hearing, he received an effective sixty-year sentence to be served at 100%. In this direct appeal, the Defendant’s only challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping, arguing that the short period of confinement was incidental to the burglary and did not substantially interfere with the victim’s liberty. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Rickey Clayton Rogers, was charged in a three-count indictment with DUI third offense; driving on a revoked or suspended license, third offense; and violation of the implied consent law. He filed a motion to dismiss all charges in the indictment on the basis that the charges were filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant pled guilty as charged in the indictment, and purported to reserve certified questions of law for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The State argues that the appeal should be dismissed because of Defendant’s failure to comply with all of the requirements to reserve a certified question of law for appeal; in the alternative, the State argues that the judgments should be affirmed. After a review of the record and a review of the applicable case law, we dismiss the appeal.