APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case presents an appeal as of right from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. The Petitioner is serving an eight-year sentence for a jury conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The Petitioner asserts that Counsel’s failure to properly investigate or prepare for trial constitutes the ineffective assistance of counsel. The Petitioner, however, failed to provide clear and convincing proof at the post-conviction hearing to support his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The Petitioner, Terrance Milam, entered a best interest plea to two counts of rape of a child, involving two separate victims, and the trial court sentenced him to serve forty years, at 100%. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to inform him of his right to appeal and to request that the trial court appoint appellate counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed his petition, and the Petitioner timely appealed. After review, we reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand the case for the appointment of counsel, entry of a certified question of law, and grant of a delayed appeal.

The petitioner, Elvis Louis Marsh, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

After a bench trial, the Defendant, Austin Forkpa, was convicted of resisting arrest, for which he received a six-month sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, specifically alleging that he did not intentionally use force to prevent or obstruct an arrest and, alternatively, that he was acting in self-defense based upon the officers’ use of excessive force. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Brandon Luke Baron, appeals from the Cumberland County Criminal Court’s denial of his request for judicial diversion following his guilty plea to child abuse, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-15-401 (2014) (subsequently amended). The court imposed the agreed-upon two-year sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve it in the Department of Correction. The Defendant contends that the court erred in denying judicial diversion. We conclude that the trial court failed to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors in accord with State v. Electroplating, 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), and State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996), but upon de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying judicial diversion.

The Defendant, Martell Smith, was convicted of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine and of the delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both occurring in a drug-free school zone, and he received a sentence of thirty years in prison. On appeal, he asserts that his convictions should be reversed because the State did not prove that the transaction occurred within the requisite distance of the school or that the educational establishment at issue was a school under statute, because the prosecutor committed misconduct in his opening statements, and because the trial court refused to deliver his requested special instructions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The trial court revoked the community corrections sentence of the Defendant, Jeffrey Brian Gwaltney, and ordered that he serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that, while he did violate his alternative sentence, the trial court’s full revocation of his fifteen-year sentence was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant, Marvin Glynn Allen, appeals his conviction for DUI, fourth offense, arguing that, based on the plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-405(a), his charge should have been DUI, third offense. After a thorough review of the record, applicable case law, and the legislative history, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Rodriccus Funzie, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder. Over a year after this court affirmed his conviction, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court subsequently denied the petition on its merits. Following our review of the record and relevant law, we conclude the petition was untimely, and, therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Wilson, of first degree felony murder, criminal attempt to commit second degree murder, aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Robert T. McLeod, Defendant, entered a best interest guilty plea to five counts of violating the sex offender registry, one count of violating community supervision, and one count of tampering with evidence with an effective sentence of three years. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered Defendant to serve his sentence in incarceration. After a review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Appellant, Glyn Terrance Dale, Sr., appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court's summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by increasing the Appellant' s sentence at the resentencing hearing; (2) counsel abandoned him during his resentencing hearing; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Howard Stewart, was convicted by a Lawrence County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2018) (first degree murder), 39-14-103 (2018) (theft), 39-14-105 (2018) (grading of theft). The trial court modified the Defendant’s theft conviction to theft of property valued at $1,000 or less, a Class A misdemeanor, and imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for first degree murder and eleven months, twenty-nine days for theft. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence, (3) the court erred by admitting two photographs of the victim, and (4) the cumulative error of the evidentiary issues entitles him to a new trial. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Kendall Rivers, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of voluntary manslaughter, claiming that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a video recording taken from the defendant’s cellular telephone, by imposing the maximum sentence, and by ordering the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Jaron Harris, Petitioner, filed a pro se post-conviction petition and an amended petition through counsel, claiming he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, due process, and equal protection based on the racial composition of the jury. The post-conviction court denied relief. Although Petitioner mentions ineffective assistance of counsel in his brief, the only issue raised on appeal is the stand-alone equal protection issue, citing the racial composition of the jury. Because Petitioner failed to raise the jury composition issue on direct appeal of his convictions and because Petitioner abandoned the other issues raised in his post-conviction petition, those issues are waived. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Revada Wright, was convicted by a Bradley County Criminal Court jury of speeding, a Class C misdemeanor, and possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 gram of cocaine, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417 (Supp. 2012) (subsequently amended) (possession of cocaine); 55-8-152 (2017) (speeding). He received a sentence of twelve years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because there is insufficient evidence to support his drug conviction. We reverse the judgment for possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 gram of cocaine, vacate the Defendant’s conviction, and dismiss the charge.

The Defendant, Billy Ray Moats, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court convictions for two counts each of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $500 or more but less than $1,000. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient relative to the value of the stolen property in support of his theft convictions; in addition, he raises for the first time on appeal a challenge to the version of the theft grading statute applied during sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that although the evidence regarding the property’s value was sufficient, the trial court should have applied the amended theft grading statute that went into effect on January 1, 2017, and that plain error relief is warranted. We remand for the entry of corrected judgments in Counts 3 and 4 reflecting Class A misdemeanor convictions and a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to serve. The trial court’s merger of the convictions and its determination regarding consecutive sentencing will remain the same.

The Defendant, Jonathan Richens, appeals from the Sevier County Circuit Court’s revocation of probation for his effective six-year sentence for resisting arrest and aggravated assault. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, David Scott Whitson, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his Community Corrections sentence in May 2019. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it required Defendant to serve his sentence. After conducting a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Dane Lee Duckett, appeals the Cumberland County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to three counts of possession of one-half gram or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell, which resulted in an effective ten-year sentence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Moriarco Lee, was found guilty by a jury of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault, and he received a twenty-two-year sentence in confinement. The Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal to this court. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief contending, among other claims not raised on appeal, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to subpoena alibi witnesses to testify at trial, failed to present video evidence at trial, and failed to challenge a biased juror. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Tipton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Bryan Austin Demeza, of one count of aggravated child neglect, three counts of aggravated child abuse, and one count of felony murder. On direct appeal, this court reduced one of the Petitioner’s convictions from aggravated child neglect to child neglect. State v. Bryan Austin Demeza, W2016-02086-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1040145, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 7, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 8, 2018). The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. After review, we affirm the postconviction court’s judgment.

On November 9, 2018, the Defendant, Jose Hernandez, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to 11 months and 29 days in a workhouse, which the court suspended to 11 months and 29 days on supervised probation. The Defendant argues on appeal that: 1) the trial court imposed supplemental probation conditions that were preempted by federal law; 2) the Defendant’s supplemental probation conditions did not provide sufficient notice of what was expected of him on probation; and 3) the trial court violated the Defendant’s due process rights by failing to give notice of his probation violation and a revocation hearing. After thorough review, we reverse and remand for a probation revocation hearing.

Defendant, Trevor Rochel Cullom, Alias, appeals from the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation. After a review of the record, we determine that Defendant was denied due process during his revocation hearing. As a result, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new hearing.

The Defendant, Antonio Toomes, appeals his convictions for felony murder and especially aggravated burglary, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in ordering him to proceed pro se at trial on the day before trial; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement; and (3) the prosecutors made improper comments during voir dire and closing arguments. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the Defendant implicitly waived or forfeited his right to counsel and in requiring the Defendant to proceed pro se at trial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial.