APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Jermaine Campbell, pleaded guilty to aggravated statutory rape, and the trial court imposed a sentence of eight years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we conclude that a new sentencing hearing is necessary because the trial court failed to place the appropriate findings on the record. Additionally, corrected judgment forms are needed in counts one and two. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Stephen M. Mobley, of two counts of
first-degree premeditated murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, one count
of aggravated assault, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a
dangerous felony. The trial court merged the attempted first degree murder and aggravated
assault convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twentysix
years. In his first appeal, the Defendant contended that the trial court erred when it
failed to make requisite findings based on Batson v. Kentucky regarding the State’s use of
a peremptory challenge to strike an African-American potential juror during voir dire.
State v. Stephen Maurice Mobley, No. E2020-00234-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 3610905, at
*1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 31, 2021). This court remanded the case for the
trial court to make appropriate findings pursuant to Batson. On remand, the trial court
concluded that the State’s exercise of the peremptory challenge did not violate Batson. The
Defendant again appeals, contending that the trial court erred. After our review, we affirm
the trial court’s judgments.

The Appellant, Michael Dominic Sales, appeals the post-conviction court’s order dismissing his post-conviction petition as untimely. Appointed counsel has moved to withdraw pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 22. That motion is denied. Upon review of the appellate record on file, this Court hereby affirms the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

The petitioner, Kevin McDougle, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s
summary denial of his sixth pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Based on our review of the record, the parties’
briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Monroe County jury convicted the Defendant, Steven Shawn Bowen, of driving under
the influence, third offense, driving on a revoked license, second offense, and violation of
the financial responsibility for a motor vehicle statute. On appeal, the Defendant asserts
that the trial court erred when it: (1) “refused to allow [the Defendant] a court reporter;”
(2) denied his motion to dismiss based on the State’s failure to preserve video footage of
the stop and arrest; (3) denied his motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations; and
(4) admitted the official toxicology report in the absence of witnesses to establish chain of
custody for the blood sample. Finally, the Defendant claims that there is insufficient
evidence to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Darries Leon Jackson, was convicted by a Hawkins County Criminal Court
jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The
Defendant raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
conviction; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the
Defendant’s shooting of the victim’s daughter in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence
404(b); (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the Defendant’s wife to testify about
conversations with the Defendant in violation of the Defendant’s marital privilege; (4)
whether the jury’s overhearing of jury-out proceedings deprived the Defendant of his right
to a fair trial; and (5) whether the Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. Based
on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Buyer of property at delinquent tax sale filed suit against the property’s former owner to quiet title. The former owner filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging, lack of notice concerning the underlying delinquent tax lawsuit and violation of her due process rights. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, concluding the counterclaim was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations for invalidating tax sales, and ruled for the buyer in the quiet title action. We hold that the former owner failed to institute a legal challenge to the tax sale within the limitations period despite having adequate notice of the sale. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

The Petitioner, Kevin Allen Fleming, appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of three counts of
aggravated vehicular homicide and one count of driving under the influence, fourth
offense. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying
relief on his claims alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We
affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Travis Smith, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child. On appeal, the
Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claims
alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Petitioner argues
that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to meet with and keep the Petitioner
informed, (2) failing to object on Confrontation Clause grounds to exclusion of the victim’s
testimony about an indecent exposure incident that occurred at the courthouse during the
Petitioner’s trial and failing to preserve the issue for appeal, (3) failing to find and prepare
witnesses, and (4) failing to properly cross-examine witnesses. The Petitioner additionally
argues that he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After review, we
affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Nicklaus Edward Brush, alias, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court
jury convictions of aggravated kidnapping and domestic assault, arguing that the first count
of the indictment failed to charge an offense, that the evidence was insufficient to support
his aggravated kidnapping conviction, that the State failed to establish venue, and that the
trial court improperly questioned a witness at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Gavin Tyler Sheets, pled guilty to the offenses of vehicular homicide by recklessness and reckless endangerment. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for judicial diversion. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order an alternative sentence to incarceration. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Alvin Stewart, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and domestic assault and his effective twenty-year sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Ricky Durham, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal,
he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely without
a hearing on the merits of his claims. Following our review of the entire record and the
briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Antonio J. Hurt, Defendant, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment after a shooting at a barber shop. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi on the aggravated assault charge, and the State withdrew the reckless endangerment charge. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 8 years. Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed a pro se premature notice of appeal in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal in this Court. This Court waived the timely filing of the notice of appeal. On appeal, Defendant complains about the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of certain testimony of two witnesses, and statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument. After a review, we determine the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendant is not entitled to plain error review of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment form dismissing the count of the indictment for reckless endangerment.

This is a contract dispute between a doctor and healthcare entities. The trial court awarded
summary judgment to the healthcare defendants, and the doctor appeals. We find no basis
to overturn the ruling of the trial court.

The Defendant, Charles Larry Nichols, III, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence or clerical error, arguing that he was entitled to “street time” credit for the time he served on community corrections but was being supervised by state probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the Defendant was not entitled to the street time credit because he was on supervised probation, not community corrections. However, we remand the case to the trial court for correction of a separate clerical error in the amended judgment of conviction.

After pleading guilty on September 18, 2018, to three counts of aggravated rape in three separate cases, Patrick Marshall, Defendant, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 25 years at 100%.  Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he argued that his sentences were imposed in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-523(e)(3), ordering “aggravated rapists” to serve the entire sentence “if the offense occurs on or after July 1, 2012.”  It is undisputed that Defendant’s offense dates were before July 1, 2012.  The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) should allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits and entering an order directing the TDOC to allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits.  Defendant appealed.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgment forms that reflect Defendant is entitled to earn up to 15% sentence reduction credits.

Katherine Sanko (“Mother”) and Clinton Sanko (“Father”) dispute custody of two of their
four children. The children have lived primarily with Mother in Pennsylvania. However,
following a petition filed by Father to change custody, the trial court concluded that a
material change in circumstances occurred and that Father should be the primary residential
parent. Because the trial court determined that the material change in circumstances was
Mother’s relocation from Tennessee to Pennsylvania and this Court sanctioned the
relocation in a prior appeal, the ruling must be vacated and the case remanded.

Husband appeals the trial court’s classification, valuation, and division of real property in
this divorce action. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this custody case, Father appeals the trial court’s order allowing Mother to relocate, from
Tennessee to Virginia, with the parties’ daughter. Father also appeals the trial court’s order
charging him with costs of the child’s airline travel expenses and the guardian ad litem’s
attorney’s fees. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Mother and the guardian ad
litem’s respective requests for appellate attorneys’ fees are granted.

This case involves the denial of a claim for pandemic unemployment assistance and the subsequent administrative proceedings before the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The applicant failed to appear for his appeals hearing despite being notified of the hearing and the procedures required to participate in the hearing. The applicant’s request to reopen his case was denied because he failed to show good cause for his failure to attend. The applicant petitioned for judicial review in the chancery court. After finding substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits, the chancery court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. We affirm the chancery court’s decision

The Petitioner, Michael Brooks, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial
of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated
kidnapping, facilitation of aggravated robbery, assault, and aggravated burglary, for
which he is serving an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner
contends that the post-conviction court (1) erred in denying relief on his ineffective
assistance claims and (2) deprived him of due process in various respects. We affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

This appeal arises from a complaint filed with the Claims Commission in which Christopher Turner (“Plaintiff”) seeks monetary damages for being incarcerated by the State of Tennessee (“the State”) beyond his sentence expiration date due to the failure of the Tennessee Department of Correction to award the pretrial jail credits and “street time” ordered by the criminal court as provided by his plea agreement. The amended complaint alleged “negligent care, custody, and control of persons,” “negligent care of personal property,” “negligent operation of machinery or equipment (computer systems),” and “breach of written contract.” The State filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims Commissioner granted the motion and dismissed the case on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because “the allegations in the Complaint fall outside the categories set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 9-8-307.” Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Commission’s determination that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. However, both parties contend, and we agree, that instead of dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, the Commission was required to transfer the case to the Board of Claims. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-402(a)(5) (“Claims not within the jurisdiction of the claims commission shall be sent to the board of claims.”). Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to transfer the case to the Board of Claims.

The Defendant, Willie Taylor, was convicted of rape, assault, and promoting prostitution.
The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred by not suppressing his
statement to the police and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for
rape and assault. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.