APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I acknowledge that the majority opinion does not grant error coram nobis relief to this defendant but merely remands the case to the trial court for the purpose of the trial court applying the proper standard of review. I simply disagree with the majority’s conclusion; therefore, I dissent. The State argues that the one-year statute of limitations bars proceeding with the petitioner’s claims. The majority is unsure as to what date the statute began running under the facts of this case but has concluded, in any event, that due process requires the tolling of the statute. I conclude that the statute began to run thirty days after the judgment of conviction was entered on June 27, 1985. Our supreme court has specifically held that, as to a petition for writ of error coram nobis, “[a] judgment becomes final in the trial court thirty days after its entry if no post-motions are filed” and that “[i]f a post-trial motion is timely filed, the judgment becomes final upon entry of an order disposing of the post-trial motion.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 670 (Tenn. 1999) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 4(c); State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn. 1996)). The petitioner did not file his petition for writ of error coram nobis until April 22, 2005. Because I agree with the State that the so-called new information either could or should have been discovered during the first trial, I disagree with the majority that due process requires tolling the statute of limitations. Thus, I would dismiss the petitioner’s claim as time barred.

The petitioner, Erskine Leroy Johnson, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Shelby County Criminal Court, claiming that newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the petition on the basis that the petitioner was at fault for timely failing to discover the evidence. The petitioner appeals, maintaining that the newly discovered evidence entitles him to a new trial. He also argues that the coram nobis court applied the incorrect standard in denying his petition for coram nobis relief, that the court did not address all of the evidence in denying his petition, and that a review of all the evidence shows he should receive a new trial. The State argues that the coram nobis court should have dismissed the petition because it was untimely filed and that, in any event, the court properly denied the petition. Based upon our review, we conclude that due process required tolling the statute of limitations in this case and agree with the petitioner that the coram nobis court denied the petition based upon the incorrect standard. Therefore, the court’s denial of the petition is reversed, and the case is remanded to the coram nobis court for reconsideration of the petition.

Appellant, Lois Brasfield, was convicted by a Shelby County Jury of felony reckless endangerment and misdemeanor assault. As a result, she was sentenced to eighteen months in incarceration. The trial court ordered her to spend 90 days in jail and the balance of the sentence on probation. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to give the missing witness instruction to the jury at trial. After a review of the record, we conclude that Appellant failed to show that the instruction was warranted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I agree with the majority that, in spite of numerous misdeeds committed by the State, the defendant is not entitled to relief. However, rules of discovery and rules of disclosure of  exculpatory evidence exist for a reason. They are a necessary part of our notion of due process and ensure the accused an opportunity to adequately prepare for trial. If the State violates the rules, whether intentionally or negligently, the result, even if correct, is tarnished. As Justice Douglas aptly pointed out over forty years ago, “[s]ociety wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Such is the case herein.

At the conclusion of his second trial, Defendant-Appellant, William Glenn Wiley (hereinafter “Wiley”) was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to a concurrent twenty-year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, Wiley argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal when the evidence was insufficient to convict him of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery; (2) he should be granted a new trial because of several violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963); (3) he should be granted a new trial because of several Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 violations; (4) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence his Knights Inn employment application and Arrowhead Motel receipt; (5) the trial court erred in admitting prior bad act evidence in the form of Michelle Scheffel’s testimony and rebuttal evidence of a prior assault;(6) his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is excessive; and (7) the trial court erred in denying his request for co-counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Monique Y. Croom, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that she received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to: (1) maintain proper records, (2) adequately investigate her case and interview certain witnesses, (3) expedite her mental health evaluation, and (4) explain the types of homicide and the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant, Ricky Joe Headley, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury in October of 2007 for four counts of official misconduct in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-402, as a result of actions taken while serving as the Sheriff of Williamson County. Appellant was also indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in October of 2007 in a multi-count indictment for thirty-three drug related charges that arose out of his unlawful acquisition of prescription medication from a pharmacy in Davidson County while he was wearing his Williamson County uniform and driving a Williamson County law enforcement vehicle. The cases were consolidated, and Appellant eventually pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit official misconduct and four counts of simple possession, all Class A misdemeanors, in exchange for an effective sentence of four years, eleven months, and twenty-five days. Appellant was ordered to serve the sentence on probation,three years of which was to be supervised. At a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion. Appellant appeals this denial. We determine that the trial court considered the factors required for the grant or denial of judicial diversion and did not abuse its discretion in denying judicial diversion to Appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant, Sean Brett Browder, was indicted for one count of theft over $10,000 and one count of theft over $500 by the Montgomery County Grand Jury. Appellant entered an open guilty plea to one count of theft of property over $1,000 and one count of theft of property over $500. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to five years for the first count and three years for the second count to be served concurrently to each other in the Department of Correction. Appellant now argues on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing the length of sentence and in not ordering alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there is no basis for reversal of the length of his sentence and there was adequate support for the denial of alternative sentencing.

The defendant, Shairiq Seabrooks, was indicted on charges of first degree felony murder and first degree murder. After a jury trial, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the felony murder charge and the charge of first degree murder remained. The jury convicted the defendant of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and the defendant was sentenced as a standard Range I offender to serve twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant has appealed, raising the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of second degree murder; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the victim’s prior arrest for the unlawful possession of a weapon; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony as inadmissible hearsay; (4) whether the jury charge concerning reasonable doubt was unconstitutional; and (5) whether the court erred in charging the jury on second degree murder. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, John Anthony Cline, was convicted by a Henry County Circuit Court jury of theft of property worth $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The State filed a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment based on several prior convictions. The trial court sentenced Cline as a Range II, multiple offender and imposed an eight-year sentence at thirty-five percent. In this appeal, Cline challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence and (2) the sufficiency of the State’s notice to seek enhanced punishment. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Don Wayne Williams, was convicted by a Madison County jury of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor, and felony failure to appear, a Class E felony. He was later sentenced by the trial court to six months for the resisting arrest conviction and as a career offender to six years for the failure to appear conviction. His sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction for failure to appear. Based on our review, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find the defendant guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Ronnie Henry, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and four counts of robbery, a Class C felony. The counts involving the same victims were merged, resulting in two convictions for aggravated robbery and two convictions for robbery, and the defendant was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of seventy years in the Department of Correction. In his original direct appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and alleged that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of a witness and in its sentencing determinations. See State v. Ronnie Henry, No. W2006-00344-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 450459 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2008), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008). We affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing “in compliance with Gomez II [State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007)] and our standard principles of sentencing.” Id. at *5. On remand, the trial court again sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of seventy years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the pro se defendant raises issues relating to the State’s alleged untimely filing of its notice of enhanced punishment; the trial court’s ruling on the State’s motion in limine with respect to the testimony of a defense witness; and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. The State responds by arguing that the first two issues are waived and that the record supports the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. We agree with the State and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On November 3, 2006, the petitioner, Donald Thomas Stagner, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and theft over $500 and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years and one and onehalf years, respectively. The court ordered that the sentences would be served concurrently and suspended after ninety days. On October 18, 2007, the petitioner sought post-conviction relief, asserting that his pleas of guilty were unknowing and that trial counsel was ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief by order entered on February 4, 2008. The defendant filed his notice of appeal on March 13, 2008, and the State argues that the notice of appeal was untimely and, thus, this appeal should be dismissed. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief.

Petitioner, Thomas David Williams, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to provide him with discovery until after the guilty plea was entered. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Roger Glenn Dile, of rape of a child, a Class A felony; attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony; and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-two years to be served at 100% as a child rapist. The Defendant appeals, contending: (1) the evidence, as a matter of law, was insufficient to support his convictions because the proof at trial fatally varied from his indictments; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to merge one of his aggravated sexual battery convictions into his rape of a child conviction; and (3) the trial court erred when it set the length and alignment of his sentences. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Tony Curtis Holmes, was convicted of one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences. On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in three areas: failing to grant a mistrial; allowing irrelevant testimony; and allowing hearsay testimony. After careful review, we conclude no error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court.

The petitioner, James Young, filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and two amended petitions for post-conviction relief. He appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to: (1) impeach a State’s witness, (2) subpoena an eyewitness to testify, and (3) request a jury instruction on selfdefense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, William Keith Paulson, was convicted by a Knox County jury of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; two counts of felony evading arrest, Class D felonies; evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor; driving without a license, a Class C misdemeanor; and violation of the state registration law, a Class C misdemeanor. Subsequently, he was sentenced to an effective eighteen-year sentence, as a career offender, in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of whether double jeopardy principles require the merger of his convictions for reckless endangerment, felony evading arrest, and evading arrest into a single conviction for felony evading arrest. Following review of the record, we conclude that the two counts for felony evading arrest should have been merged into a single count as they were simply alternative charges for the same conduct. Further, we determine that the misdemeanor evading arrest should have also been merged with the felony evading arrest as it represented a single course of conduct. However, merger of the single remaining felony evading arrest and the reckless endangerment convictions is not required. As such, the case is remanded for entry of corrected judgments of conviction in accordance with this opinion.

On January 22, 2009, the Rhea County Criminal Court dismissed two counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”) against the defendant, Kim Geselbracht. The trial court determined that a law enforcement officer’s ignoring the defendant’s repeated requests for an independent blood test for blood alcohol content (“BAC”) denied the defendant his constitutional and statutory rights. The State appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing the charges. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Corey Eshmon, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and one count of theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to eight years for the aggravated robbery conviction, three years for each of the aggravated assault convictions, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the theft conviction. Finding the defendant to be a dangerous offender, the court ordered that the robbery sentence run consecutively to one of the assault sentences, for an effective sentence of eleven years in the Department of Correction. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress witness identifications; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Angelo Allen, was convicted of possession of cocaine and two counts of possession of marijuana, all Class A misdemeanors. The defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twentynine days for each conviction. The court ordered that the marijuana convictions be merged and that the remaining two convictions run concurrently, for a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The defendant raises four issues on appeal: (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress; (2) count two of his indictment should have been dismissed; (3) venue was not established at trial; and (4) he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we conclude that the motion to suppress was properly denied, count two was proper, and venue was established. However, we remand for affixing a percentage of the sentence to be served by the defendant.

The petitioner, Gregory L. Smith, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving a twelve-year sentence following his conviction for aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. On appeal, he contends that the postconviction court erred in determining that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1) adequately investigate;  2) adequately communicate with the petitioner, provide and discuss discovery, prepare the petitioner to testify, and convey plea offers; (3) elicit facts helpful to the defense at trial; and (4) interview and call witnesses for the defense. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, James Leon Miller (hereinafter “the petitioner”), was convicted by a jury of criminal responsibility for first degree murder and criminal responsibility for aggravated assault. He now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, claiming “the trial court erred in finding that the trial court counsel effectively assisted and represented the [petitioner].” Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Corey Gilliam, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of theft of property valued at over $1,000, felon in possession of a handgun, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury, and driving on a suspended license. He was sentenced to twelve years as a career offender for the theft of property conviction, six years as a career offender for the felon in possession of a handgun conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second or subsequent driving on a suspended license conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred by providing the jury with an instruction on reasonable doubt that was unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred by finding that the defendant’s 2007 conviction for aggravated robbery was admissible for impeachment; (4) the imposition of consecutive sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment; (5) the State failed to elect when the defendant drove on a suspended license in the indictment; and (6) the jury instructions for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury and driving on a suspended license failed to charge a mens rea. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, William Arthur Shelton, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.