Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

The Petitioner, Gary K. Thomas, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his January 2005 conviction for simple assault. The Petitioner’s August 2012 petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his plea was not voluntary, was dismissed as untimely. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal after he requested such action. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Daniel Humphrey ("the Defendant") pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and, pursuant to his plea agreement, was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years on community corrections. Upon the subsequent filing of a violation warrant, the Defendant was taken into custody, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community corrections sentence and ordered him to serve the remainder of his original sentence in confinement. The Defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant was found guilty after a trial by jury of aggravated arson, a Class A felony, aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, theft of property over $1000.00, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to twenty years for aggravated arson, six years for aggravated burglary, and four years for theft over $1,000.00, with all sentences to run concurrently, for a total effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that one of the State’s witnesses was an accomplice as a matter of law. Upon review, we determine that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions and that the trial court properly instructed the jury with respect to the legal status of the State’s witness. The judgments from the trial court are affirmed.

A Williamson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Timothy W. Sparrow, of two counts of second degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. After merging the second degree murder convictions, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to suppress a suggestive pretrial identification of the appellant as the perpetrator; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred by not upholding the appellant’s Batson challenge after the State peremptorily challenged a black juror; (4) whether the trial court erred by admitting a statement made by a State’s witness; (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting a photograph of the murder victim that was taken while he was alive; (6) whether the trial court erred by admitting a black t-shirt that was alleged to belong to the appellant; (7) whether the trial court erred in its communications with jurors; (8) whether the trial court erred in sentencing; and (9) whether the principles of double jeopardy were violated. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

James Richardson Reece, the defendant, was arrested for an aggravated assault which occurred in a workshop underneath his apartment. Immediately after his arrest, the defendant began to challenge the actions of the Sumner County court system, filing numerous documents with this Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court and suing various persons and entities in federal court. The lower courts appointed four separate attorneys to represent the defendant, but each moved to withdraw. At the defendant’s urging, the trial court allowed the defendant to waive his right to counsel. When the defendant subsequently requested counsel on the eve of trial, the trial court refused to appoint an attorney. A jury convicted the defendant of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. On appeal, the defendant asserts he was denied the right to counsel and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Although the evidence supported the conviction, we conclude that the defendant did not waive or forfeit his right to counsel and reverse and remand for a new trial.

The Defendant, Sue Ann Christopher, was convicted by a Hancock County Criminal Court jury of first offense driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, DUI accompanied by a child under the age of eighteen, a Class A misdemeanor, unlawful possession of prescription drugs, a Class C misdemeanor, and violating the implied consent law. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401, 53-10-105, 55-10-406(3) (2012). The trial court merged the DUI conviction with the DUI accompanied by a child under the age of eighteen conviction. The court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with 120 days to be served in confinement for the DUI conviction and thirty days’ confinement for the drug-related conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that her sentence for the DUI accompanied by a child conviction is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Marcus Norwood, entered an Alford plea to second degree murder in Shelby County in October of 2010, with an agreed sentence of twenty-five years. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel which adversely affected his decision to enter a guilty plea. The post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed. After a review of the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish that counsel’s performance was deficient or that the voluntariness of the guilty plea was affected by the actions of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Love, of aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-four1 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to suppress a photographic lineup of the Defendant, which he asserts was unnecessarily suggestive; and (2) the trial court erred when it enhanced the Defendant’s sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentence. Having noticed, however, that there are clerical errors in the judgments of conviction for the aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony convictions, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments.

Defendant, Christopher Scott Chapman, was indicted by the Sumner County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, charged to the jury as a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder, and the second count of the indictment was dismissed by the trial court. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court to serve six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence and asserts: 1) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to the offense of aggravated assault as a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder; 2) that the trial court erred by not recusing itself; 3) that the trial court erred by sentencing Defendant to the maximum sentence within the range; and 4) that the trial court erred by ordering Defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to a prior sentence for aggravated assault for which Defendant was on probation at the time he committed the offense in this case. After a careful review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.