COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

Robert Rayford vs. State
02C01-9701-CC-00011
Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.

State vs. Gina Merrell
02C01-9604-CC-00131
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

Gregory Turner vs. Jimmy Harrison
02C01-9701-CC-00025

Fred Bowen vs. Billy Compton
02C01-9701-CC-00016

03S01-9511-CC-00360
03S01-9511-CC-00360
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. Buford
03C01-9603-CR-00096
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State vs. Stamm
03C01-9602-CC-00068
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

State vs. Riffey
03C01-9602-CC-00074
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

Seals vs. State
03C01-9605-CC-00188
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler

State vs. Rogers
03C01-9607-CR-00268
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

State vs. John F. Wolard
01C01-9612-CC-00532

03C01-9601-CC-00016
03C01-9601-CC-00016
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

State vs. Theodore Howard
02C01-9508-CR-00237

State vs. Terry Logan
02C01-9609-CC-00297

State vs. James Gray
02C01-9601-CC-00035
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

State of Tennessee v. George Glenn Faulkner
01C01-9812-CR-00488
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

State vs. Matthew King
02C01-9607-CC-00237
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

State vs. Mirack Smith
W1999-01566-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

03C01-9602-CC-00079
03C01-9602-CC-00079
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

03C01-9512-CC-00405
03C01-9512-CC-00405

03C01-9508-CC-00247
03C01-9508-CC-00247
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

03C01-9601-CR-00019
03C01-9601-CR-00019

Anthony Williams vs Bill Compton, Warden
02C01-9612-CC-00469

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on December 17, 1996, and the petitioner’s brief was filed on February 7, 1997. The petitioner was originally indicted for aggravated rape in February 1987, and the petitioner was subsequently convicted of the same. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.

Phillip Mark Nunley v. State of Tennessee
01C01-9602-CC-00066
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Buddy D. Perry

Appellant Philip Mark Nunley appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On March 23, 1993, Appellant pled guilty to seconddegree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Appellant received a sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment for second-degree murder and twenty years imprisonment for especially aggravated robbery. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. On July 10, 1993, Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that he involuntarily entered his guilty plea. The post-conviction court dismissed his petition, finding Appellant’s petition without merit. On appeal, Appellant argues that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered. For the reasons discussed below, we reject Appellant’s claim and affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee vs. Billy Joe Baggett
01C01-9604-CC-00160
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

The appellant, Billy Joe Baggett, was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen (15) years as a Range III, Persistent Offender. On appeal, he presents ten (10) issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for aggravated burglary; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce tape recordings of four (4) telephone conversations between Baggett and a state informant; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce a prybar into evidence; (4) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to use prior convictions for impeachment purposes; (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to present evidence of Baggett’s escape from jail; (6) whether the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial following a state witness’ prejudicial remarks; (7) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of Baggett’s preferential treatment while in jail; (8) whether the charge to the jury as to reasonable doubt was unconstitutional; (9) whether the trial court erred in sentencing Baggett; and (10)  whether the delay in hearing the motion for new trial violated his right to a speedy appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.