Dan E. Durell, Petitioner, appeals from the summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, in which he claimed his convictions were void because the State withheld exculpatory evidence during sentencing; the State misrepresented facts to the trial court that were relied upon in sentencing; and his convictions violate double jeopardy. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The pro se Defendant, Ryan Monroe Allen, appeals his jury convictions for second degree murder and abuse of a corpse, and his resulting effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues as follows: (1) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to continue or, in the alternative, to proceed pro se that was made at the start of trial, thus, forcing the Defendant to proceed to trial with an attorney who had a conflict of interest; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), and the prosecutor explicitly defied the trial court’s pretrial 404(b) ruling during opening statements; (3) the trial court erred by failing to address pretrial the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the abuse of a corpse charge due to insufficient proof of venue or, in the alternative, to sever the two offenses; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions; (5) the trial court erred by not excusing a juror who indicated that she might have known the spouse of someone who assisted with the investigation; (6) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial made because the State failed to disclose prior to trial that two witnesses were going to testify to having seen certain evidence in the Defendant’s residence; (7) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to recuse made on the ground that the trial court was holding court proceedings without the Defendant present and was biased against the Defendant; (8) the Defendant’s sentence was out-of-range and illegal because he was not provided with the State’s notice of its intention to seek enhanced punishment; (9) the State’s case was based on perjured and recanted testimony; and (10) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by suppressing certain pieces of evidence. Following our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on January 17, 2023, in the Knox County General Sessions Court (“Trial Court”). The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant incorrectly sought review in this Court instead of the circuit court. Furthermore, the Notice of Appeal was not filed until May 12, 2023, more than ten days after entry of the Trial Court’s judgment from which the appellant seeks to appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was untimely and was filed in the wrong court, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. We also determine that transferring the appeal to the correct court would be futile.

This case concerns claims of negligence against several people and entities for allegedly serving alcohol to and/or failing to protect a 20-year-old man who died in a car accident while intoxicated. John D. Benbow (“Plaintiff”), individually and as next of kin to his son, Jacob N. Benbow, deceased, filed a wrongful death action in the Sumner County Circuit Court (“the Trial Court”) against the defendants, L&S Family Entertainment, LLC d/b/a Strike & Spare (“L&S”); JPZ, LLC d/b/a Silverado Rivergate Sports Bar & Grill (“Silverado’s”); Rancho Cantina, LLC (“Rancho Cantina”); Jody D. McCutchen; Brandi McCutchen; and Brenon D. McCutchen (“the McCutchens”). Certain of the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for Rancho Cantina, L&S, Brandi, and Jody. However, the Trial Court denied summary judgment for Brenon. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment to Jody because Plaintiff failed to create any genuine issue of material fact that Jody took charge of Jacob. However, we reverse the Trial Court’s grants of summary judgment to Rancho Cantina, L&S, and Brandi, as genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against those parties. We observe that the standard is comparative fault, not contributory negligence. Whether Jacob was at least 50% at fault for comparative fault purposes is a question not properly resolvable at this summary judgment stage under the facts of this case. We thus affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. We remand to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

The petitioner, Undray Luellen, appeals the denial of his Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that his sentence is illegal because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences without stating its reasons on the record. Upon our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Frederick D. DeBerry, appeals from the Fayette County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his 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 conclude that the petitioner’s appeal is untimely, the interest of justice does not mandate waiver of the untimely notice, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Xiaorong You, a chemical engineer, of stealing trade secrets from her former employers. On appeal, You argues that the district court admitted racist testimony that denied her a fair trial, gave jury instructions that mischaracterized the government’s burden of proof as to You’s knowledge of the trade secrets and their value to China, and, in calculating her sentence, both improperly considered and unreasonably calculated the loss that she intended to cause.

We affirm You’s conviction, but vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing. The district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, its jury instructions, or its reliance on intended loss. However, in calculating the intended loss, the district court clearly erred by relying on market estimates that it deemed speculative and by confusing anticipated sales of You’s planned business with its anticipated profits.

The Defendant, Kyanedre Oshea-Malik Benson, was convicted in the Haywood County Circuit Court of one count of employing a firearm during the attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony; one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class C felony; one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; ten counts of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective sentence of sixty-two years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during the attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter and that the trial court erred by refusing to merge one of his convictions of reckless aggravated assault into his conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Rex Allen Moore, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation after incurring new criminal charges related to his failing to report an email address to the sex offender registry. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he knowingly violated the terms of his probation. Following a de novo review of the record, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Ricky Campbell, Jr., pleaded guilty to theft of more than $10,000. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.