COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Ronnie Mason
03C01-9809-CC-00328
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance

State vs. Carlos Mathis
03C01-9807-CC-00249
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

State vs. Harold Woodroof
01C01-9809-CR-00361
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Donald K. Moore, Jr.
01C01-9809-CR-00362
Trial Court Judge: Thomas T. Woodall

Frank Barnard vs. State
01C01-9807-CR-00296
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier

State vs. Delbert G. Mosher
01C01-9807-CC-00320
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

Tommy Lee Kelley vs. State
01C01-9811-CR-00452

State vs. Kenneth Johnson
01C01-9809-CR-00372
Trial Court Judge: Thomas T. Woodall

State vs. Joseph White
W2001-01775-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley
The Appellant, Joseph White, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape and was sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.

William H. Horton vs. State
01C01-9704-CR-00132
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs. Guy William Rush
03C01-9805-CR-00193
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

01C01-9808-CR-00322
01C01-9808-CR-00322
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier

Alvin L. Smith, Jr. vs. State
01C01-9808-CC-00343
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

State vs. Jason Kennedy Frazier
01C01-9812-CC-00484

Richard Waline vs. State
01C01-9805-CR-00199
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs. Michael Cardenas
W2001-01123-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
The appellant, Michael Brian Cardenas, appeals from the order of the Chester County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the appellant argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because "he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the trial level." In the appellant's brief, he raises four general areas of ineffectiveness: (1) his attorney failed to investigate, prepare or present a defense to charges against him; (2) counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the statement that appellant had provided to arresting authorities; (3) counsel failed to file a motion for change of venue; and (4) potential character witnesses were never interviewed to determine whether their testimony could be used during the trial. We find this argument without merit. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

State v. Erica Hartwell
W2001-03116-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
In this appeal the appellant, Erica J. Hartwell, contends that the Circuit Court of Tipton County, Tennessee, erred in denying her a writ of certiorari to review and vacate the orders of the Tipton County General Sessions Court revoking the appellant's probation. She maintains that the general sessions court conducted the probation revocation hearing without proper notice and without informing her of her right to an attorney at the hearing and her right to appeal. We hold that under the circumstances the writ of certiorari is not available. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

Daniel L. Sanders vs. State
01C01-9712-CC-00586

State vs. James E. Frazier
01C01-9801-CC-00036
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

State vs. David E. Hancock
03C01-9808-CR-00278
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

State vs. Danny Lynn Porter
03C01-9811-CR-00393
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

State vs. David Proffitt
03C01-9901-CR-00026
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

State of Tennessee vs. Mark M. Gesner
01C01-9902-CC-00033
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of one-half ounce or more of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to a term of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This sentence was suspended and the defendant was to serve four years on supervised probation and a term of ninety days in the county jail. The defendant’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The defendant now appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant’s contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Ruth Stanford
02C01-9812-CC-00365
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, JR.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Whit Lafon

The defendant, Ruth Stanford, stands convicted of sale of a Schedule III controlled substance and delivery of a Schedule III controlled substance. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (1991) (amended 1996, 1997) (proscriptive statute); § 39-17-410 (1991) (amended 1996) (scheduled drugs). Stanford received her convictions at a jury trial in the Henderson County Circuit Court. She was sentenced to serve concurrent two-year sentences1 for these Class D felonies, with the first 90 days to be served in the county facility and the balance to be served on probation. In this  appeal, she raises three issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the
witness who purchased drugs from Stanford without qualifying
the basis of knowledge and reliability of the witness's
testimony.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance of the
hearing on the motion for new trial and ruling on the merits of
the motion.
3. Whether the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law, we find no
reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. James Tyrone Harbison
03C01-9808-CR-00271
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Douglas A. Meyer

The defendant, James Tyrone Harbison, was convicted in 1997 of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of “serious bodily injury” as an aggravating factor of the defendant’s convicted offense; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony that the defendant had been released from prison immediately preceeding the instant offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser offense; (4) whether the defendant’s sentence is excessive; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III persistent offender. We AFFIRM the judgment from the trial court.