APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Jeffrey King, pleaded guilty to multiple drug and money laundering crimes, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years of incarceration to be served at 100%. The Petitioner attempted to reserve certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) about whether wiretaps used in the investigation of the crime were lawful. This court determined that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief on the basis of the certified questions and affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. King, 437 S.W.3d 856, 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). In 2015, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

After a jury trial, the defendants, Lenardo Dewayne Spencer, Reginald Tyrone Baxter, Jr., and Deandre Jajuan Dean, were convicted of robbery and theft of property over $1000. On appeal, the defendants assert the evidence was insufficient to support their robbery convictions, arguing the alleged taking was not accomplished by the use of violence or fear. The defendants also claim prosecutorial misconduct in the State’s closing argument and challenge the State’s expert witness testimony. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jarvis D. Cohen, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After review, we affirm the denial of the Defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion.

The Petitioner, Stephen Lynn Hugueley, was sentenced to death for the 2002 first degree premeditated murder of a prison counselor, Delbert Steed, while the Petitioner was housed at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility, following two prior first degree murder convictions for the shotgun slaying of his mother and the later killing of another inmate. See State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356, 364 (Tenn. 2006). He filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that his 2013 MRI, which showed that he had congenital brain defects, was “newly discovered evidence” that he was incompetent at the time of his 2003 capital trial, as well as in 2008 when he withdrew his petition for postconviction relief. The coram nobis court concluded that the Petitioner had made an insufficient showing for the granting of relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the court erred in this determination, asserting that, had his incompetency been known at the time of trial, no judgment of conviction would have been entered and that, as well, he had not been competent to waive the presentation of mitigating evidence at trial or to waive his right to utilize post-conviction procedures. Further, he argues that a relative may pursue, in his behalf, his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following our review, we conclude that the Petitioner’s claim of incompetency before and after his trial does not constitute “newly discovered evidence” and, further, that this claim was untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the coram nobis court denying relief.

The Petitioner, Andrew Hayes, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery convictions, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendants, Arthur and Michelle Graham, were indicted on August 31, 2010, for theft of property valued at $60,000 or more from the State of Tennessee based on their fraudulent medical billing practices at the children’s therapy facility they owned and operated, which resulted in overpayments in excess of $200,000. According to the indictment, the thefts occurred between March 6, 2002, and October 31, 2003. The delay in indicting the matter resulted from the fact that the United States Attorney’s Office had first investigated the thefts and did not release the matter to the Shelby County District Attorney General’s Office until the applicable federal statute of limitations had run. The Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming their rights to a speedy trial had been violated by the pre-indictment delay. The trial court denied the motions. Subsequently, the Defendants filed a joint motion to reopen proof on their earlier motions to dismiss. The court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. While the court held that the Defendants had failed to present proof of actual prejudice between the last alleged criminal act and the return of the indictment, it found that the eight-year statute of limitations had run as to the thefts alleged to have occurred prior to August 31, 2002. As a result, the State could proceed only as to those thefts occurring between August 31, 2002, and October 31, 2003. The Defendants then filed a joint motion, asking that the court reconsider its earlier order, again asserting the pre-indictment delay violated their rights to a speedy trial. After hearing the testimony of witnesses, the trial court reversed its previous order, this time finding that the Defendants had been prejudiced by the pre-indictment delay, and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals this order. As we will explain, we reverse this order of the trial court and reinstate the indictment.

Appellant was injured in an automobile collision with a State Trooper. After a trial, the Claims Commissioner found in favor of the State and dismissed the claim. Discerning no error, we affirm. 

Insurer brought a declaratory judgment action asking the court to determine the proper beneficiary of the proceeds of a life insurance policy rider insuring the life of the named insured’s child; the named insured had designated her mother as the beneficiary of the policy and rider. Upon the child’s death, the named insured was prevented by law from receiving the proceeds, and the insurer asked for a declaration of whether the named insured’s disqualification also prevented the named beneficiary from receiving the proceeds or whether the estate of the child would receive the proceeds, in accordance with the designation of beneficiary in the policy. The trial court determined that the policy’s designation was inequitable and awarded the proceeds to the estate of the child.  We have determined that the disqualification of the named insured from receiving the proceeds of the policy does not invalidate the designation of beneficiary and, accordingly, reverse the decision of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of C.F.B. (mother) and J.W.B (father) with respect to their two children, C.J.B. and C.C.B. As to mother, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of four grounds supporting termination. By the same quantum of proof, the trial court found that termination of mother’s rights is in the best interest of the children. As to father, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of three grounds supporting termination. By the same standard of evidence, the trial court found that termination of father’s rights is in the best interest of the children. Mother and father appeal. As modified, we affirm.

The pro se defendant, David Frazier, appeals as of right from the Polk County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his motion for correction of illegal sentence. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court.

Defendant, Rocky Burton, was convicted by a Rutherford County Jury of felony vandalism, assault, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication after an incident involving his neighbor. He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the State to use prior convictions to impeach him and that the State’s closing argument was improper. Because Defendant opened the door to impeachment by his own testimony and the State did not engage in improper closing argument, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Elgain Ricky Wilson, pleaded guilty to first degree felony murder, armed robbery, and two counts of assault with the intent to commit armed robbery in 1984 and received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus fifty years. Almost thirty-two years later, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct an illegal sentence because although the indictment alleged the murder victim was killed when the victim was being robbed, the evidence showed the murder victim was killed during the robbery of another person. As a result, the Defendant argued that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion after determining that the Defendant’s motion failed to state a colorable claim for relief because the motion was not based upon the imposition of an illegal sentence but rather upon insufficient evidence and the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a medical malpractice action in which the trial court granted summary judgment for failure to file suit within the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.

The pro se appellant, David Wayne Hearing, appeals as of right from the Greene County Criminal Court’s order denying his motion for correction of clerical mistake. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the Greene County Criminal Court.

Following the Defendant’s, Terry Charles Jordan’s, guilty-pleaded conviction for felony failure to appear, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years’ incarceration. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentencing term to the maximum within the range because several of his felony convictions should have been merged. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a post-divorce order of protection. Mother obtained an ex-parte order of protection on behalf of the parties’ thirteen-year-old son alleging that Father had punched the child in the mouth while drunk on a family vacation. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed Mother’s petition for order of protection finding that she had not met her burden of proof. Mother appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Jose Dimas Alvarado, appeals as of right from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. See Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 39-13-504. The Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview as substantive evidence; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence and argument that the Defendant had characteristics typical of perpetrators of child sexual abuse; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to make improper statements during closing argument that referenced facts outside the record and shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant; (4) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of rape of a child; and (5) that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Shaun Rondale Cross, appeals as of right from the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that his guilty plea was not voluntary because one of his trial attorneys “terrorized” him by threatening that he would receive “an all[-]white jury” that would “hang” him if he went to trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Austin Randall Britt, through counsel, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in the custody of the Department of Correction. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Teddy Robbins, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial of domestic assault, aggravated assault, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated rape for crimes committed against his wife, and he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of fifty years’ imprisonment. The Petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, asserting that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to adequately prepare for trial and failed to present certain defense witnesses. After a hearing, the trial court found that counsel prepared adequately for trial, that a defense witness presented at the post-conviction hearing was not credible, and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice. The Petitioner appeals, contending that trial counsel’s testimony at the hearing demonstrated inadequate preparation and that as a result, his strategic decision not to call a witness was not entitled to deference. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Carlos Smith, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2012 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and being a felon in possession of a handgun, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Because the post-conviction court failed to make any findings with regard to the petitioner’s claim that trial counsel did not properly inform him of his potential sentencing exposure, we remand for the limited purpose of making the requisite findings on this issue. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Ebony Houston, appeals the Wilson County Criminal Court’s finding of criminal contempt for failure to appear at a show cause hearing. The Defendant argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court violated her due process rights when it found her in contempt without providing notice or an opportunity to prepare for the hearing. Following our review, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction.

The Defendant, Anthony Blackwell, was convicted by a Giles County jury of the aggravated rape of a child, a Class A felony, and sentenced as a Range III, Persistent Offender to fifty-years’ imprisonment at one-hundred percent service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by allowing certain medical testimony and records pertaining to “child sexual abuse,” and that his sentence was unlawful. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Tony P., filed a “Complaint and Petition to Terminate Parental Rights and/or for Adoption” in the Circuit Court for McMinn County (“trial court”) on September 18, 2015. This petition sought to terminate the parental rights of the “unknown father” of a child for whom Tony P. had signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (“VAP”). Jon F. filed a motion to intervene, asserting that he was the biological father of the child. The trial court allowed Jon F. to intervene in the action pursuant to an agreed order. The child’s mother later filed a motion seeking to dismiss Tony P.’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By oral motion, Jon F. joined with the mother in seeking dismissal. The trial court entered a Memorandum and Order on August 15, 2016, finding that (1) Jon F. was the biological and legal father of the child, (2) Tony P.’s VAP had been rebutted, and (3) any and all parental rights of Tony P. as legal father were “terminated by operation of law under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(28)(C).” The trial court entered a subsequent order dismissing the petition filed by Tony P. Tony P. timely appealed. Having determined that the trial court properly found that Jon F. challenged and rebutted the VAP executed by Tony P., we conclude that Tony P. no longer enjoyed any parental rights with regard to the child. Although we determine that the trial court erred by applying Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(28)(C) retrospectively to this action filed before the statutory subsection’s enactment, we determine this error to be harmless inasmuch as Tony P.’s parental rights were a nullity. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect that Tony P. had no parental rights to be terminated following the court’s rescission of the VAP. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Tony P.’s petition seeking termination of Jon F.’s parental rights. We decline to award fees and costs to the mother and Jon F.

The State of Tennessee filed a petition in 2013 on behalf of the mother of a child who was born in 1996 to legitimate the child and to require the father to provide health insurance for the child; the requested relief was granted.  In 2014, the mother filed a petition to set child support and, following a hearing before a juvenile court magistrate, the father was ordered to pay child support; the magistrate determined that child support should not be made retroactive to the birth of the child but, rather, to the date that the petition to have the child legitimated was filed.  Mother appealed the decision to the juvenile judge; after a de novo hearing, the juvenile judge adopted the findings of the magistrate and ordered Father to pay support of $549.00 per month from the date the petition to legitimate was filed.  Mother appeals the ruling, contending that the obligation to pay support should be retroactive to the date of the child’s birth.  Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment.