APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey O. Short a.k.a. Jeffery O’Neal Short a.k.a. Jeffrey Oneal Short, pleaded guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to two counts of burglary of a business, a Class D felony. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Short to serve the sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Joseph Alfonso Sigala (“the Defendant”) pleaded guiltyto two counts of aggravated burglary and two counts of theft between $1,000 and $10,000, but the plea left open the issue of sentencing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective five-and-a-half-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting the Defendant’s social networking web page as an exhibit; (2) denying judicial diversion; (3) improperly applying the statutory enhancing and mitigating factors; (4) finding that the Defendant lacked credibility; and (5) denying the Defendant probation. Upon a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Rhonda Medley (“the petitioner” or “the defendant”) was convicted by a jury of five counts of rape of a child. Her convictions were affirmed on appeal. She filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, she asserts that her trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to advise her properly regarding her right to testify at trial and by failing to call certain witnesses. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Gary Allen Carlton (“the Defendant”) was convicted after a bench trial of one count of impersonating a licenced professional and one count of violating the Home Improvement Contractors Licensing Act. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of two years, with 120 days to be served and the remainder on probation. The Defendant has appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Ray Jerome Odom, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to felony murder and aggravated assault. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser included offense of second degree murder and sentenced by the trial court to 18 years confinement, to be served at 100 percent. In this appeal as of right, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Alan Ray Hall, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief from his conviction of first degree murder, contending that the trial court erroneously advised him during the plea proceedings that he was potentially eligible for release after service of twenty- five years of his life sentence. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, finding that the issue was previously determined, that the judgment was not void, and that the sentence had not expired. The petitioner appeals this ruling. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Randy Boxley, was convicted of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the identification evidence was faulty, and without this, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury found the appellant, Jerry Rommell Gray, guilty of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of imprisonment for life plus fifteen years. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erroneously allowed the State to present fingerprint evidence in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The appellant also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to take additional fingerprints of the appellant during trial. Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding accomplice testimony. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Billy McFarland, pled guilty to one count of failure to timely report as a violent sexual offender, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-39-204(b), -208. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a two-year sentence to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

David Wayne Phillips (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to twenty-six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor after a computer that he gave someone was discovered to contain child pornography. Nineteen of the counts were for possessing in excess of one hundred images of a minor, all Class B felonies, and the remaining seven counts were for possessing images of a minor, all Class D felonies. The guilty plea agreement did not include an agreement with the State as to sentencing. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective thirty-five year sentence and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the Defendant’s prior twenty-five year sentence. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to merge the Defendant’s twenty-six convictions into a single Class B felony; and (2) imposing an excessive sentence. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Dwayne Jabbar Seales,appeals from the summary dismissal of his March 30, 2011 petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. On December 19, 2002, the Petitioner pled guilty to aggravated assault and domestic assault, and following his 2011 arrest on an unrelated charge, immigration removal proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioner based upon his 2002 guilty plea convictions. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that due process requires tolling of the post-conviction limitations period because of trial counsel’s failure to inform him of the deportation consequences of his plea. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Lawrence Brown (“the Defendant”) was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to twelve years’ incarceration. In doing so, the trial court enhanced the Defendant’s sentence based upon the following factors: (1) the Defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior; (2) the offense involved more than one victim; and (3) the Defendant had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high. The Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it enhanced his sentence based upon his prior convictions, which were misdemeanor traffic offenses. Because we are not permitted to assess the weight given by the trial court to enhancement factors, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue. However, because we also determine that the trial court erred in its application of the other two enhancement factors, under the particular facts of this case, we conclude that it is necessary to vacate the judgments of the trial court and remand for resentencing.

The Defendant, James W. Rembert, entered an open plea to offenses alleged in two separate indictments: a four-count indictment for burglary, theft, vandalism, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and an additional indictment for aggravated perjury.On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing was error because the trial court “erroneously presumed” that the Defendant was on bond for offenses in the four-count indictment when the offense of aggravated perjury was committed. Because no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent on the record, and the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

David M. Jones (“the Defendant”) pled guilty to one count of attempted second degree murder, with no agreement as to sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years’ incarceration, consecutive to a prior conviction. The Defendant has appealed the length of his sentence. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Brandon Ackerman, of four counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor,see T.C.A. § 39-13-529(b)(1) (2006); two counts of child abuse, see id. § 39-15-401; and one count of rape of a child, see id. § 39-13-522, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 27 and one half years’ incarceration, 20 years of which was to be served at 100 percent by operation of law, see id. § 39-13-523(b). In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of his expert witness, by admitting into evidence a video recording of the victim’s forensic interview, by permitting three State’s witnesses to testify regarding the hearsay statements of the victim, and by denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statements to his ex-wife and to police. Because the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence the video recording of the forensic interview and the victim’s hearsay statements to three witnesses and because those errors cannot be classified as harmless, the judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

The Defendant-Appellant, Nicholas Larsen, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. The transcript from the guilty plea hearing indicates that Larsen attempted to reserve a certified question of law on appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. Although the judgment form references an attachment setting out Larsen’s certified question of law, no such attachment appears in the appellate record. Moreover, the record contains no corrective order filed prior to the filing of the notice of appeal in this case. Because Larsen failed to properly reserve a certified question, the appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, Jerome Sidney Barrett, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, for a 1975 homicide. See T.C.A. § 39-2403 (1975) (amended 1979, 1985) (renumbered at § 39-2-211) (repealed 1989). He was sentenced to forty-four years, to be served consecutively to a life sentence for a previous conviction. On appeal, he contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the prosecution due to excessive pre-indictment delay; (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the Defendant stated he “had killed before”; (5) the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask a defense witness whether he was arrested, suspended, and had resigned from the police force in 1978; (6) the trial court erred in allowing the forensic pathologist who performed the victim’s autopsy to testify as an expert in DNA analysis; (7) the trial court erred in permitting impeachment of a defense witness with evidence of a misdemeanor conviction; (8) the trial court erred in imposing a forty-four year sentence; and (9) the trial court erred in ordering the sentence to be served consecutively to the Defendant’s life sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Anthony Laren Tweedy, II (“the Defendant”) was convicted of initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. On appeal, the Defendant requests that this Court, under a plain error review, dismiss his conviction for manufacture of methamphetamine. He also asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, and felony possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant does not appeal his conviction for possession of marijuana. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine. We also reduce his conviction from felony to misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia and affirm as modified. However, we reverse and dismiss the Defendant’s conviction for manufacture of methamphetamine.

The petitioner, James W. Gann, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder, arson, and setting fire to personal property, and he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus eight years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Robert D.Conner, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissalof his petition for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner attacks his convictions for second degree murder and aggravated assault following a jury trial in which he was charged with first degree murder and aggravated assault. The sole ground for relief argued on appeal is that Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to file a written motion pre-trial for the severance of offenses, since the charges involved two different victims and occurred on different days. After a thorough review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

Appellant, Charles Middlebrook, was indicted in two separate cases for one count of theft of property over $1,000, one count of theft of property over $500, and three counts of assault. After negotiation with the State, Appellant pled guilty to one count of theft of property over $1,000 and one count of simple assault. The remaining counts were dismissed. Appellant was sentenced to eight years as a Range III, persistent offender for the conviction for theft of property and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the conviction for assault. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing. Appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly denied an alternative sentence. Because the record supports the trial court’s finding that Appellant had a lengthy prior record and repeated unwillingness to comply with a sentence involving release in the community, we affirm the trial court’s denial of an alternative sentence.

After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of rape, a Class B felony, and incest, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the defendant raises numerous challenges to his convictions and sentences. The defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. However, his argument is based on alleged inconsistencies in the evidence, and conflicts in the evidence provide no basis for reversing a defendant’s convictions. The defendant claims that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a police officer concerning statements that the defendant made to his wife in the officer’s presence because these statements were protected by the martial privilege. However, we conclude that the statements were not privileged because the defendant had no reasonable expectation that they would remain confidential. The defendant claims that these same statements should also have been excluded because the officer did not give the defendant his Miranda warnings. However, this claim must fail because the defendant was neither in custody nor being interrogated by the police at the time the statements were made. The defendant claims that the trial court erred by admitting an exhibit containing a nurse’s handwritten notes repeating certain statements made by the victim concerning the cause of her injuries,because these statements were inadmissible under the hearsay rule. However, the trial court properly admitted the statements under the excited utterance exception to that rule. The defendant claims that the trial court erred by giving a pattern rape instruction that included references to “fellatio” and “cunnilingus” because there was no evidence presented at trial establishing that the defendant had committed either act. However, we conclude that the instruction at issue fully and accurately stated the law. The defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted certain exhibits because no chain of custody had been established, but this argument has been waived. The defendant challenges his ten-year effective sentence as excessive, but after thorough review we can discern no error in the defendant’s sentencing. Finally, the defendant claims that the 2005 Sentencing Act is unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 302 (2005), but we conclude that binding precedent firmly establishes that the 2005 Sentencing Act complies with Blakely. Consequently, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
 

Appellant, Monroe James Dodson, Jr. and his co-defendants were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for three counts of aggravated rape, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony. Appellant pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a weapon during a felony with prior convictions. The trial court held a separate sentencing hearing and sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of eighty-two years. Appellant appeals both the length of his sentences and the imposition of consecutive sentences. After a review of the record on appeal, we have determined that the enhancement factors used by the trial court were supported by the record and that, therefore, the length of the sentences is affirmed. We also conclude that the record on appeal supports the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant is a dangerous offender and that consecutive sentences are warranted in his case. For these reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Shirea Barber, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with ten days’ confinement and the remainder on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant,JeffreyOsborne,was convicted by a Williamson County jury of burglary and theft of property valued up to $500. Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of burglary because it failed to establish that Appellant lacked effective consent to enter the building that was the basis of the burglary charge. After a thorough review of the record on appeal, we find that a rational trier of fact could conclude that Appellant lacked effective consent. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.