APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Raymond Arthur Klein, appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated sexual battery and criminal attempt to commit rape of a child. The defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the defendant argues a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him because he was not permitted to introduce the results of a polygraph examination from a prior investigation. Finally, the defendant argues his sentence was improperly ordered to be served consecutively to a prior sexual battery conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgments and sentence of the trial court.

The Petitioner, James Howard Hurtch, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Xavier Todd, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentences. The Defendant pleaded guilty to ten offenses, and he received an effective thirty-year sentence. His individual sentences were imposed concurrently to each other and concurrently to a federal sentence. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion. We affirm the dismissal.

Following a mistrial for juror misconduct, the Defendant-Appellant, Kaylon Sebron Bailey, was convicted as charged by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202, 39-17-1307(b)(1)(B) (Supp. 2011). The trial court imposed a life sentence for the murder conviction before sentencing Bailey, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, as a Range I, standard offender to a concurrent two-year sentence for the firearm offense. On appeal, Bailey argues (1) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s statements identifying him as the perpetrator of the shooting, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions.1 We affirm Bailey’s convictions but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 1 reflecting an indicted and conviction offense of first degree premeditated murder in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202 and a corrected judgment in Count 2 reflecting an indicted offense of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39- 17-1307.

Following a jury trial, Eric Sims, the defendant, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, six counts of attempted first degree murder, and six counts of employment of a firearm during attempted first degree murder. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life in prison plus one hundred and eighty-six years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, the admission of evidence regarding his gang affiliation, and the length of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Charles Fowlkes, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (DUI) in exchange for a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation after the service of forty-eight hours in the Hamilton County jail. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, which alleged that he was unconstitutionally stopped and seized. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Mark Anthony Thomas, appeals the revocation of his probation to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur with the majority’s opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment based on the failure of the Defendant to strictly comply with the prerequisites established in State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988).

Defendant, Eric Washington, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of probation for his convictions for aggravated assault, domestic assault, and vandalism under $500 and order that he serve his effective ten-year sentence in confinement. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing hearsay testimony at the revocation hearing and that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation. Upon our review of the record, we hold that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony without a finding of good cause or reliability and that the trial court erred in revoking Defendant’s probation on a ground for which there was a lack of evidence in the record. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A jury convicted Petitioner, John C. Crim, of eight counts of rape of a child and six counts of aggravated sexual battery. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, and his petition was denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that his trial counsel were deficient in omitting an argument pertaining to the suppression of his confession; in failing to obtain the testimony of a witness; in failing to object to jury instructions regarding the mens rea required for aggravated sexual battery; and in failing to object to jury instructions regarding unanimous acquittal. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established any grounds for relief, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed and the Petitioner failed to present any factual allegations or documents allowing the tolling of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Petitioner concedes that his petition was untimely filed but argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled and his petition addressed on its merits. The Petitioner also contends that this court should treat his motion to vacate, which was denied by the trial court, as a properly-filed petition for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Johnnie Ray Ashford, of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony, and attempting to sell a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class D felony, and he received an effective three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of a State witness regarding the witness’s potential bias, that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, and that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Sean Greenlee, the Defendant, appeals the summary denial of his “Motion to Correct Sentence” filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Because the motion failed to state a colorable claim, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the motion.

The Defendant, Angela Montgomery, appeals as of right from her convictions for six counts of rape of a child. The Defendant argues (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence that the Defendant used corporal punishment to discipline her children; and (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to introduce a witness’s prior inconsistent statements. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In October 2013, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant-Appellant, Deewaine Mikel Bumpas, in count one for aggravated robbery occurring on June 19, 2013; in count two for attempted aggravated robbery occurring on June 26, 2013; and in count three for aggravated robbery occurring on July 3, 2013. The trial court, at the State’s request, severed counts one and two, and the parties proceeded to trial on count three. A jury subsequently convicted Bumpas, as charged, of the July 3, 2013 aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years at 85% release eligibility. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-402, 40-35-501(k)(1). On appeal, Bumpas contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude the photographic lineup and accompanying testimony; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude the surveillance video and accompanying testimony; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to questions regarding Sergeant Williams’ personnel record; (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial; (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (6) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (7) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Vernica Shabree Calloway, a.k.a. Vernica S. Ward, a.k.a. Vernica Jackson, appeals the denial of her post-conviction petition, arguing trial counsels’ strategy regarding the use of expert witnesses on behalf of her defense was ineffective. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

I respectfully concur in results only. My concern in this case is that inadmissible polygraph testing evidence was presented at the suppression hearing.

The Appellant, Nero Oswald Jones, appeals as of right from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that the trial court erred because his motion stated a colorable claim for relief. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Michael Terrell McKissack, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and facilitation of attempted carjacking. In the petition, the Petitioner argued that his trial counsel was ineffective (1) by failing to call two of his co-defendants to testify on his behalf; (2) by failing to inform him that his third co-defendant would testify against him; and (3) by failing to adduce proof during the guilt phase regarding his lack of education and mental health issues. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Kenneth Tucker, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Reginald Bernard Coffee, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced to fifteen years. See T.C.A. § 39-13-403 (2014). On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the fingerprint evidence was admitted without a sufficient foundation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Carlos Richard Morris, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, one count of possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and one count of failing to obey a stop sign. The trial court merged the two possession with intent to sell convictions, and it sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eight years. It ordered that the Defendant’s eight-year sentence from Madison County run concurrently with any remaining sentences from two previous Henderson County possession with intent to sell cocaine convictions. The Defendant filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct his allegedly illegal sentence, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Danny O. Owens, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree murder conviction, alleging he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This is the second appeal involving the attempted forfeiture of horses that had allegedly been the victims of animal abuse. The State appeals the trial court’s finding that Appellee owners had standing to contest the forfeiture and the grant of summary judgment to Appellee owners on the ground that the State failed to comply with applicable procedural requirements. We conclude that because Appellees are “owners” as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-702(3), they have standing to contest the forfeiture. We also conclude that the undisputed facts establish that the attempted forfeiture did not comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the applicable forfeiture statutes. The trial court’s ruling is, therefore, affirmed.

Plaintiff alleged that the City of Mt. Juliet breached a settlement agreement with her by violating a non-disparagement agreement. Because Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of damages, summary judgment was appropriate. We affirm.