A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted Defendant, Justin David Whaley, of vehicular homicide by intoxication, reckless driving, driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), reckless vehicular homicide, and multiple driving-related misdemeanor offenses, and the trial court merged the convictions into one conviction for vehicular homicide by intoxication and sentenced Defendant to nine years’ incarceration. Defendant appealed, and while his direct appeal was pending, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. Following a hearing, the trial court granted coram nobis relief in part, vacating Defendant’s convictions for vehicular homicide by intoxication and DUI but denying relief as to Defendant’s remaining convictions. Both Defendant and the State appealed the trial court’s coram nobis order, and this court consolidated Defendant’s direct appeal with both parties’ appeals of the trial court’s coram nobis order. On appeal, Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions for vehicular homicide and DUI; (2) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant for a blood draw; (3) the admission of the results of the analysis of his blood sample and the retrograde extrapolation as unreliable; (4) the admission of testimony of a Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”) employee as improper lay opinion; (5) the trial court’s decision to allow the jury to visit the scene; and (6) the jury instructions on mistake of fact and reckless vehicular homicide. Defendant also contends that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial warrants relief and that the trial court erred in failing to grant coram nobis relief for all his convictions. In its cross- appeal, the State asserts that the trial court erred by granting partial coram nobis relief. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting coram nobis relief for Defendant’s convictions of vehicular homicide by intoxication and DUI, and we reinstate those convictions. Because the trial court only imposed sentences for the vehicular homicide by intoxication conviction, we remand for a sentencing hearing for the remaining convictions and the entry of corrected judgments reflecting separate sentences for each conviction. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.