After Maurice Summerall was indicted for rape nearly 14 years after the incident, his attorney Charles Mitchell argues a delay in testing the rape kit has harmed Summerall’s ability to defend himself at trial. This week Mitchell filed a motion asking for the dismissal of the charge because of the delay. The Commercial Appeal reports Memphis police did not send the rape kit to a forensic center for testing for more than 12 years. Memphis has more than 12,000 untested sexual assault kits that have accumulated since the 1980s.

The Appellant, Darrian White, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that he was released on bail prior to committing several offenses and that his sentences are illegal because the trial court ordered them to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, currently serving a life sentence as the result of a 1984 conviction for armed robbery, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, claiming that the sentencing court erred in finding him to be a “persistent offender.” His motion was denied without a hearing, and he appealed. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court dismissing the motion.

The defendant, Joseph Jordan, was convicted of rape, a Class B felony, two counts of false imprisonment, Class A misdemeanors, and one count of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor.

The Defendant, Isen Berry, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve the balance of his six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that he had violated the conditions of his community corrections. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted the petitioner of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. In this petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner alleges that various errors at trial and on post-conviction render his convictions void. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appeals the dismissal. We conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Roger Joseph, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post- conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to premeditated first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his instant petition, he contends that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. While acknowledging that the petition was filed well outside the statute of limitations, he claims that he has shown that due process requires the tolling of the statute based upon his mental condition.

The Defendant, Danny Wayne Horn, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504. He received a sentence of ten years? incarceration for said conviction.

This is an appeal from a Final Order and Judgment in a case arising out of a dispute over real property located in Roane County, Tennessee. There was no court reporter present for the trial. The Chancellor recused himself from the case post-judgment but before the record was prepared and transmitted for this appeal. The Circuit Court Judge accepted the case by interchange for purposes of resolving the parties= dispute regarding a statement of the evidence for inclusion in the record.

This is an easement case. Appellants, the servient land owners, appeal the trial court?s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, the former owners of both the dominant and servient tracts of land. Based on the fact that the disputed easement was recorded prior to the sale to the Appellants, the trial court determined that there was no dispute as to any material fact and that Appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.