APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Michael Desean Breland, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property, and the trial court sentenced him to two concurrent eight-year sentences to be served on probation. Subsequently, the trial court twice found the Defendant was in violation of the terms of his probation, and it revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it placed his original sentence into effect rather than allow him to return to probation with the condition that he complete an alcohol abuse treatment program. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In August 2001, the Petitioner, Matthew Jackson, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery for which he received two concurrent ten-year sentences. In November 2010, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging the existence of newly discovered evidence. The coram nobis court denied relief without a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the coram nobis court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for coram nobis relief. Having reviewed the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Marlon Williams, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession of marijuana, a Class E felony, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, a Class D felony. He is serving one year for possession of marijuana consecutively to three years for possession of a firearm. The Petitioner contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea to the possession of a firearm charge and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he did not understand that the firearm conviction required 100 percent service of the sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 1992, the Petitioner, Alonzo Felix Andres Juan, was convicted of first degree murder and theft of property of a value of $600.00. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment and eleven months and twenty-nine days. This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Alonzo Felix Andres Juan, No. 03C01-9211-CR-00382, 1993 WL 310702 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 17, 1993), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Dec. 6, 1993). The Petitioner filed a petition for error coram nobis relief in September 2010, however, the error coram nobis court summarily dismissed his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. After our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Mira Eva Harris, pled guilty, in two different indictments, to two counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”), two counts of DUI as a prior offender, driving on a revoked license, driving on a revoked license as a prior offender, violation of the implied consent law, and violation of the open container law. After merger with the appropriate prior offender charges, the defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the two DUI convictions and eleven months and twenty-nine days on the driving on a revoked license conviction, all to be served consecutively, as well as eleven months and twenty-nine days for violation of the implied consent law with five days served consecutively to the other sentences. On appeal, the defendant presumably challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court. Following our review, we affirm the judgments below.

The Defendant pled guilty to promoting the manufacturing of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, with the length and manner of service for the sentence left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to a four-year sentence of split confinement, with nine months to be served in the Blount County Jail and the remainder of the sentence on enhanced supervised probation. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence and in determining the manner of service for his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the Defendant’s case with direction to the trial court to correct the judgment to reflect that the Defendant is serving his nine-month period of confinement in the Blount County Jail, not the Tennessee Department of Correction.

The defendant, Rhonda Louise Medley, was convicted in the Bedford County Circuit Court of five counts of rape of a child and subsequently sentenced to an effective term of forty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges her convictions and sentences, specifically asserting that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (3) the trial court erred in denying the motion to declare Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-522(b)(2)(A) unconstitutional. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the challenged portion of the statute is not unconstitutional. However, while the trial court appears to have appropriately applied consecutive sentencing, it erred in imposing fifteen-year terms for Counts Two through Five because Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-13-522(b)(2)(A) mandates that these sentences be set at a minimum of twenty-five years each. As such, we vacate those sentences and remand for resentencing with regard to those convictions, as well as for reconsideration of the imposition of consecutive sentencing in light of the ordered changes in the sentence lengths. The decision of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.

Petitioner, Eunus Alton Howell, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted in 1983 of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment as a persistent offender. Petitioner’s sentence and conviction were affirmed on appeal. State v. Howell, 672 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). In 2010, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief on the alleged basis that he was indicted on a charge that did not exist. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Petitioner appeals. After a review, we determine that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition for relief.

The defendant, Talmadge S. Crowder, challenges the revocation of his diversionary status, maintaining that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that he violated an Order of Protection and using that violation as a basis for the revocation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine that the defendant violated the terms of his release by violating an Order of Protection, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Jamie Scott Moore, has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Petitioner alleged that his convictions for two counts of criminal attempt to sell methamphetamine are void because they were not ordered to be served consecutively to a previous conviction for which he was on parole at the time he committed the offenses. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Travis Lurry, appeals the denial of his request for judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly weighing the factors for and against diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Raymond Bradley, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s revocation of probation for failure to pay restitution. The defendant pleaded guilty in 2009 to facilitating aggravated burglary, a Class D felony, in exchange for a four-year suspended sentence, and the trial court ordered him to pay $15,500 in restitution. This court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On August 11, 2010, the trial court found that the defendant violated the terms of his suspended sentence and revoked his probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation without finding that the defendant had the ability to pay, that he willfully failed to pay, and that no alternative measure to incarceration was available. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Demario Thomas, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court’s sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we modify the trial court’s judgment to a sentence of twenty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.

The defendant, Steven Q. Stanford, was convicted by a Campbell County jury of one count of initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced, as a Range III offender, to serve thirty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review of the record, we find that the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support the convictions, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On March 8, 2009, the defendant was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence; (3) his due process rights were violated by prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) his sentence is excessive. After careful review of the record, we reject each of these claims and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant Anton Mayhew was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to a pair of concurrent twelve-year terms. Defendant Travis Brown was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of aggravated rape, a Class A felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent twelve-year terms for the aggravated robberies and to a concurrent twenty-five-year term as a violent offender for the aggravated rape, for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant Mayhew claims that the trial court erred in admitting a portion of one witness’s testimony and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Defendant Brown claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction relating to missing evidence, by requiring him to stand next to an enlarged photograph in open court, and by sentencing him to the maximum sentence. After careful review of the record and the arguments raised by both defendants and the State, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all respects.

The defendants, Michael Farmer and Anthony Clark, were convicted of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. They were each sentenced to fifteen years for the especially aggravated robbery and to a concurrent eight years for aggravated robbery, for a total effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, both defendants claim that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions, asserting that no evidence put forth at their trial established that they actually took money from either victim. Defendant Clark further claims that the straight, pass-through bullet wound inflicted on one victim’s left thigh failed to pose a substantial enough risk of death to qualify as a serious bodily injury of the type necessary to sustain a conviction for especially aggravated robbery. Defendant Farmer further claims that the trial court erred by failing to sentence him as an especially mitigated offender. After carefully reviewing the defendants’ arguments and the record evidence, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I dissent from the majority’s holding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Terrell Westbrooks suffered serious bodily injury as that term is contemplated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(34). I believe the majority’s holding upends the statutory definition of “serious bodily injury” by essentially declaring that any injury inflicted by a deadly weapon results in serious bodily injury. I do not believe the statutory definitions support such an interpretation.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Bryant Guartos, of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus forty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed an appeal, and this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Bryant Guartos, M2003-03073-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 163633, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 24, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 28, 2006). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the Petitioner’s case for further consideration in light of new sentencing case law. Guartos v. Tennessee, 549 U.S. 1197 (2007). Upon review, this Court reversed the Petitioner’s judgments for especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and remanded the case for resentencing. State v. Bryant Guartos, No. M2003-03073-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 4245084 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 4, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 7, 2008). The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in failing to find that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Calvin Oliver, appeals his effective sentence of twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences as imposed.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Lakeisha Margaret Watkins, of attempted child neglect, four counts of aggravated child abuse, and two counts of aggravated child neglect. The trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect; and (2) the trial court erred when it ordered her sentences to run consecutively. Because the Defendant’s delay in seeking medical treatment for the victim, as proven in Count 5, did not cause serious bodily injury separate and apart from the serious bodily injury caused by the Defendant and proven in Count 4, we are constrained to reverse the conviction for aggravated child neglect in Count 5. The trial court’s judgments are affirmed in all other respects.

The petitioner, Lester Arnold Clouse, requests that this court grant him a new post-conviction hearing, asserting that the post-conviction court below did not address all of the issues raised in his petition for post-conviction relief nor did it memorialize its findings of fact and conclusions of law in writing as required by statute. After reviewing the entire record, including the transcript of the original post-conviction hearing, we conclude that the order filed by Judge Wallace is sufficient for appellate review as it adopted the earlier oral findings of fact made by Judge Sells. All other issues are waived for failing to file an adequate record for review and for failing to provide appropriate citations to the record. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petitioner post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Rodney Corley, was convicted in 1985 of first degree murder, armed robbery, and employing a firearm in the commission of a felony, and he was sentenced to life plus five years. In 2010, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged the existence of newly discovered evidence, and the trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court erred when it denied his petition without a hearing. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment.

The defendant, William Randall Crawford, pled guilty to three counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of simple assault. He received an aggregate sentence of forty-six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sentencing determinations made by the trial court, specifically arguing that he should have received the minimum sentence for each individual offense and that the sentences should not have been ordered to run consecutively. After careful review, we conclude that the trial court imposed a lawful sentence and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Christopher Lawrence Rodgers, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation  sentence. Defendant was originally indicted for one count of domestic assault, three counts of indecent exposure, and four counts of stalking. Defendant entered guilty pleas, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to one count of domestic assault and one count of stalking and was sentenced to serve 11 months and 29 days for each conviction to be served concurrently, and his sentence was suspended on probation. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed, which alleged that Defendant had acted in an abusive and intimidating manner towards his ex-girlfriend by continuing to contact her after she requested that he stop. At the probation revocation hearing, the warrant was amended, with the consent of Defendant, to allege that  Defendant violated the conditions of his probation by using intoxicants to excess. Following the hearing the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and entered a judgment placing Defendant’s original sentence into effect. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding of a violation, and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.