APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Sevier County jury found Defendant, Bobby Lynn Dockery, guilty of forgery. He was sentenced to serve 5 years at 45% as a Range III offender. Defendant alleges on appeal that his conviction for forgery violates the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. Defendant further argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Catherine McCulley, Jean Abbott, Steven Abbott, Jerry Abbott, Larry Abbott, Diane West, and Geraldine Abbott (“Plaintiffs”) sued Mark Abbott and Stephanie Abbott (“Defendants”)1 with regard to an alleged easement located across real property in Sevier County, Tennessee. During the pendency of the suit, Catherine McCulley died and a motion was made to substitute her four children as party plaintiffs. Without benefit of a hearing, the Chancery Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) entered an order allowing the substitution. The case then was tried, and the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that “the Plaintiffs, the heirs of Elmer Abbott, have an easment across the property of the Defendant, Mark Abbott . . . .” Defendants appeal to this Court raising several issues. We find and hold that the motion for substitution and the Trial Court’s order granting the motion failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25, which deprived Defendants of an opportunity to be heard prior to entry of the order allowing substitution. We, therefore, vacate both the April 22, 2015 order allowing substitution of parties and the June 5, 2015 judgment holding that “the Plaintiffs” have an easement, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

The defendant, DeMarco Waters, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of premeditated first degree murder; three counts of attempted first degree murder, Class A felonies; attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; and four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, Class C felonies. The defendant was sentenced to an effective term of life plus seventy-seven years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 6 to indicate that the conviction offense is a Class A felony.

The defendant, Jimmy Wilson, was indicted for theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-103, after unlawfully receiving of $5,875.72 in travel reimbursements from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Following trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the same. On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Michael Lamar Gaines, filed a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.  Because he failed to comply with the statutory requirements for seeking discretionary review of the dismissal of his motion, this Court has no jurisdiction over the case.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Petitioner, Michael Lamar Gaines, filed a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.  Because he failed to comply with the statutory requirements for seeking discretionary review of the dismissal of his motion, this Court has no jurisdiction over the case.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant, Mark Rollins, pleaded guilty to first offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant and reserved as a certified question the propriety of the vehicle stop leading to his arrest.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Lawrence County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, John Apfel aka Raymond DeBartolomies, of theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000.  The trial court imposed a sentence of four years.  On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing, and the amount of restitution imposed.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2012, the Petitioner, Gregory Eidson, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and attempted second degree murder, and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of three and eight years, respectively, to be served on Community Corrections.  The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied.  This Court affirmed the denial.  Gregory Eidson v. State, No. M2012-02482-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 6405782, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 6, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014).  In 2014, the Petitioner’s Community Corrections sentence was revoked, and the trial court ordered the Petitioner to serve his eleven-year sentence in confinement.  After filing several motions and petitions, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which he also termed a second motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, and a motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.  The trial court entered an order dismissing the petition and motion.  We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The petitioner, Torian Dillard, was convicted in 2006 of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to twenty years. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Torian Dillard, No. W2007-00911-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 3342952, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 11, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 2, 2009). He then filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel had been ineffective in that counsel failed to properly investigate the facts of the case or to provide a sufficient reason to dismiss a prospective juror and that the trial court erred in allowing the victim to sit facing the jury, with her back to the petitioner. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief; and, following our review, we affirm that order.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal arises from the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion for recusal. Having reviewed the trial court's ruling on the motion for recusal pursuant to the de novo standard of review required under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, James M. Grant, appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he claimed that he received an illegal sentence after a 1998 guilty plea to one count of facilitation of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder.  Upon our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dannie Brumfield, appeals as of right from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation and order of confinement for six years.  The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve two additional sentences concurrently with the remainder of his original sentence.  Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal stems from a foreclosure. Jorge A. Alfonso and Madelyn Alfonso (“Plaintiffs”) defaulted on their mortgage on real property owed to CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”). Plaintiffs wanted to effectuate a short sale in order to avoid foreclosure. However, certain real estate investors (“Defendants”) attended the foreclosure sale, bid on, and purchased the property. Plaintiffs sued Defendants and Citi in the Chancery Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”), alleging in part that Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and Citi were engaged in discussions to complete a short sale but purchased the property anyway. The Trial Court granted Citi’s motion to dismiss finding that Citi had the right to pursue foreclosure even if it was in talks with Plaintiffs to conduct a short sale. Plaintiffs do not appeal that order. The Trial Court later granted a motion to dismiss claims against the remaining Defendants. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find and hold that Plaintiffs have stated no cause of action against the remaining Defendants. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Defendant, Anthony Harville, was convicted of three counts of the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance and received an effective sentence of fifteen years.  Defendant appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence.  After a review, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

Defendant, Mandricuss Lashon Robertson, pled guilty to twelve counts of aggravated burglary and an agreed-upon effective sentence of twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining twenty-three counts of the presentment.  The trial court denied an alternative sentence after a lengthy sentencing hearing.  Defendant now appeals.  After a review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence involving incarceration.  Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Defendant, Randall Boaz, appeals his Giles County conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon.  His single issue on appeal is a claim of insufficient evidence that he used his vehicle as a deadly weapon.  Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

At issue in this case is the custody of a minor child. Although the child had previously been in the physical custody of his maternal grandmother pursuant to a temporary order, the child’s mother regained custody after the grandmother failed to show that the child would be subjected to substantial harm if returned to the mother. We affirm.

Shango Aton Ramsey (“the Petitioner”) appeals the Cocke County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea and that the State withheld evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1962). Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Marcus Hampton, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition to suspend the remainder of his effective four-year workhouse sentence for his convictions of aggravated assault and evading arrest. Because he has failed to show facts supporting an alteration of the sentence in the interest of justice, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this divorce proceeding, Husband appeals from the trial court’s classification of an account as Wife’s separate property. On appeal, Husband asserts that the account is marital property based on the doctrine of transmutation. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Edward Allen Carter, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell within a drug-free zone, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of an item with a defaced serial number, evading arrest, and driving on a suspended license, and he reserved certified questions of law relative to the validity of the city ordinance that formed the basis of the traffic stop which led to his arrest. Because the certified questions are overbroad and fail to meet specificity requirements, the appeal is dismissed.

Appellant, Kari Diane Speck, appeals the denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.  Because Appellant has failed to state a colorable claim that her sentences are illegal, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Rodney Love, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence.  The Appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Rule 36.1 relief was not available because the alleged illegal sentence had long ago expired.  Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s Rule 36.1 motion.