APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Dustin Lee Owens, was indicted for two counts of solicitation of a minor and one count of attempted aggravated statutory rape. Defendant entered an open guilty plea to all counts and was sentenced by the trial court to serve two years concurrently for Counts 1 and 2 and two years for Count 3, to be served consecutively to Counts 1 and 2, for a total effective sentence of four years as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s order of consecutive sentencing, the length of the sentences, and the requirement that the sentences be served by incarceration. We find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following his conviction by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury of one count of aggravated assault for which he received a sentence of eight years’ incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender, the petitioner, Atavis Cortez Cunningham, filed a timely petition for postconviction relief based upon allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and an unconstitutional jury composition. The Dyer County Circuit Court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the circuit court.

The Defendant, Rita White, was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and pled guilty to failure to obey a required traffic control device, a Class C misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401 (Supp. 2009) (amended 2010), 55-8-109 (2010). She was sentenced to eleven months and twentynine days for the DUI conviction, with ten days to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. She was sentenced to thirty days’ probation for the traffic device conviction, to be served concurrently with the DUI sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence, and (3) the trial court erred by denying her motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following an indictment by the Cheatham County Grand Jury, Petitioner, Michael Charles King, entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of felony murder in Dickson County. He was subsequently sentenced to life in prison. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that his plea of nolo contendere was not sufficient to waive venue because the district attorney did not authorize the waiver in writing. We have concluded that venue was properly waived, and Petitioner’s judgment is valid. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the habeas corpus court.

A Rutherford County jury convicted Appellant, Wanda F. Russell, of three counts of theft over $1,000. Prior to trial, the State filed a notice that it was intending to introduce Appellant’s prior convictions to impeach her testimony. At the conclusion of a jury-out hearing during trial, the trial court concluded that the State could use Appellant’s prior convictions for passing worthless checks pursuant to Rule 609(a)(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence to impeach Appellant. Appellant elected not to testify. She now appeals to this Court arguing that the trial court erred in determining that her prior convictions were admissible for impeachment. We have reviewed the record on appeal. We have concluded that the trial court did not err in ruling that the prior convictions were appropriate for impeachment of Appellant. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jerome Lionel Price, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, without appointment of counsel, finding that the petitioner had failed to present a claim upon which a petition for post-conviction relief may be founded. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the decision was in error because he asserts that he did, in fact, state a colorable claim for relief. We agree. As such, we reverse the order summarily dismissing the petition and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

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 defendant, Kenneth Webster, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of burglary, a Class D felony, which resulted in his career-offender, Department of Correction sentence of 12 years. The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm the criminal court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Allen Doane, was indicted on four charges of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504. On April 25, 2007, the Defendant was convicted by a jury of four counts of sexual battery, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-505. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence for each count and ordered all four counts to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of eight years. The Defendant appealed to this court, and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing to determine the length of the sentences and whether they should be served concurrently or consecutively. See State v. Allen Doane, No. E2008-00125-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 21032 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 5, 2009). After a second sentencing hearing, the trial court again imposed two-year sentences for each count and ordered  all four counts to be served consecutively, for an effective eight-year sentence. The Defendant then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the judgments in this case were void. Both matters were consolidated into this appeal. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the judgments in this case are void because the statute of limitations expired prior to the commencement of the prosecution and (2) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Richard Alexander Herrera, was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the issuance of a search warrant in another case, the Defendant pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant sought to reserve a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Following our review, we conclude that the certified question of law the Defendant sought to reserve on appeal is not dispositive of the case. The appeal is dismissed.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Alvertis Boyd, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The Defendant was sentenced as a repeat violent offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting two prior convictions as impeachment evidence; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a repeat violent offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Terry Wayne Gunter, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court. The defendant pled guilty to Class E felony forgery and Class D felony identity theft. Pursuant to the agreement, he was to be sentenced to concurrent terms of one year and two years, respectively, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the court ordered that the sentences be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence, specifically probation. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences as imposed.

The defendant, James Edward Farrar, Jr., appealed the Bedford County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation. This court reversed the trial court’s revocation, concluding that the State failed to establish a violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence and that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking probation. See State v. James Edward Farrar, Jr., No. M2009-01285-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. 6 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Sept. 10, 2010). The State filed an application for permission to appeal to our supreme court. On April 14, 2011, the supreme court granted the State’s application and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Teddy Ray Mitchell, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. E2008-02672-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2011). We have reconsidered our prior opinion in light of Teddy Ray Mitchell, and following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, although we reject part of that court’s rationale for the revocation.

The majority opinion has provided an excellent analysis of the facts and the law in this case, and I agree with the conclusion regarding the lack of evidence of public intoxication. I also believe that the present statute regarding revocation requires a preponderance of the evidence to show that a probation violation has occurred and that a subsequent decision regarding revocation is within the trial court’s discretion. See, e.g., State v. Vincent Jordan, No. M2009-02488-CCA-R3-CD, Montgomery County, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2010); State v. Richard Thomas Jones, No. E2009-01241-CCA-R3-CD, Hamilton County, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 7, 2010). I respectfully disagree, however, with the result reached regarding “excessive consumption of alcohol.” My problem in this case is with the concept of “excessive consumption” and what proves it has occurred.

This case is before the court after remand to the Davidson County Criminal Court for sentencing after this court reinstated three convictions for attempted incest that the trial court incorrectly merged with three attempted rape convictions. On remand, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, David Earl Offutt, to serve four years for each of the Class D felony attempted incest convictions and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively to each other but concurrently with an effective eighteen-year sentence the Defendant was serving for other convictions. See T.C.A. §§ 39-12-101 (attempt), 39-15-302 (2010) (incest). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing maximum sentences for his attempted incest convictions and ordering that they be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Keith Ezell, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for seven counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and four counts of aggravated robbery, for which he is serving an effective 198-year sentence. He contends that his trial attorney failed to provide effective assistance because counsel did not advise him that accepting a guilty plea offer was in his best interest and did not accurately advise him of the likelihood he would receive a greater sentence after a trial than if he accepted the plea offer. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Bryant Adair, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his untimely filed petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated robbery and from his effective sentence of thirteen and one-half years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that principles of due process require the tolling of the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Carl Lee Houghton, was found guilty by a Henderson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-504(a)(4) (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years’ confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession because it was not made voluntarily, and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing by not giving more weight to applicable mitigating factors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Carrie D. Young, stands convicted of possession with intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to an eight-year sentence, to serve 350 days with the remainder suspended. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Specifically, she argues that the trial court erred in finding that law enforcement had probable cause to do a field strip search of her, that the trial court erred in finding that the confidential informant was reliable, and that the proof was insufficient to show that she intended to deliver the cocaine. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Steven R. Chance, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Upon a review of the record, we are persuaded that the habeas corpus court was correct that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Alonzo Fishback, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon during the commission of an offense. He argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Andrew Soimis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Dwane Washington, appeals the post-conviction court’s ruling that he failed to prove prejudice by clear and convincing evidence after his case was remanded for a determination of prejudice. The proper standard of review was whether the petitioner had shown that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. After a careful review, we conclude that the post-conviction court used the wrong standard in requiring the petitioner to prove prejudice by clear and convincing evidence and that the record before us clearly establishes that there was a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s inaccurate assurances that the petitioner was eligible for boot camp, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court, vacate the petitioner’s judgment of conviction, and remand the case for a trial.

The petitioner, John W. Foster, Jr., appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery and resulting sentence of thirty years to be served at sixty percent before eligible for release. The petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A jury convicted the Petitioner, Nancy L. Blue, of two counts of rape of a child and two counts of incest. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed her convictions but modified her sentences. See State v. Nancy Blue, No. W2008-00187-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 1097450, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Apr. 23, 2009), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2009). The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief; however, the postconviction court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, finding that the petition was not timely filed. The Petitioner alleges that both prison notaries were unavailable for several days preceding the date that her petition was due and, because of their absence, she was not able to get her petition to the appropriate prison authorities for mailing until the day after the one-year statute of limitations ran. After our review, we remand to  the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant tolling the statute of limitations for due process concerns and whether the Petitioner timely filed her petition for post-conviction relief.