APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Ronnie Jackson, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. As part of his plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years for his aggravated robbery conviction and three years for each of his aggravated assault convictions, those sentences to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. He now appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order denying post-conviction relief, contending that this denial was error because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and, consequently, entered his pleas involuntarily and unknowingly. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel failed to properly investigate his case and prepare a defense strategy, that trial counsel pressured him into pleading guilty, and that by entering an Alford1 plea, he believed he could continue to challenge pre-trial constitutional issues. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Marquis Day, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief, as it relates to the petitioner’s convictions of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder, fabricating evidence, and the unlawful possession of a weapon. On appeal from the judgment of the post-conviction court, the petitioner asserts that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Anthony T. Dean, appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion for reduction of sentence. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying the motion. We affirm the order of the trial court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

The Defendant, Antoine Gray, aka Antoine Devin West, challenges the sentencing decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court. Following his guilty pleas to possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, aggravated assault, and misdemeanor evading arrest, the trial court imposed an effective five-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jimmy Lee Taylor, Jr., appeals from the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated burglary and his effective sentence of seventeen years at one hundred percent. In his appeal, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to explain the consequences of his plea and because trial counsel did not spend adequate time meeting with him. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Lamar Jermaine Thomas, of possession with the intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony; possession with the intent to sell morphine, a Class C felony; possession with the intent to sell dihydrocodeinone, a Class D felony; possession with the intent to sell more than one-half once of marijuana, a Class E felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently given an effective sentence of fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts of guilt. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendants, Jason Scott Lomax and Ophelia Lomax, were each convicted of aggravated child abuse by causing serious bodily injury and aggravated child abuse by neglect or endangering a child. These offenses were merged and each defendant was sentenced to serve eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction at 100 percent. On appeal, the only issue raised by the defendants is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain their convictions for aggravated child abuse by causing serious bodily injury. Following a review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and applicable law, we affirm the defendants’ convictions.

At the conclusion of a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of DUI, third offense. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days with all but 120 days suspended. The rest of the sentence was to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of DUI and that the trial court erred in neglecting to give the Allen or dynamite charge when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the use of the Allen or dynamite charge is no longer approved of by our supreme court. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Darrell Jennings, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and felony murder. The trial court merged the convictions, and the petitioner received a life sentence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The defendant, Damion Seals, pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to five years as a Range I offender in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court.

Appellant, Darius Montez Edwards, was indicted in April of 2007 by the Davidson County Grand Jury for premeditated first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. Appellant subsequently pled guilty to facilitation of first degree murder and facilitation of attempted first degree murder in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charge. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-four years for facilitation of first degree murder and eleven years for facilitation of attempted first degree murder. Appellant appeals his sentence. We determine that the trial court properly sentenced Appellant and, therefore, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, Carl Stevenson, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to criminal attempt murder in the first degree and especially aggravated robbery and received a concurrent sentence of 15 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred when it found that the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Derrick McClure, was convicted of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, the petitioner received an effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court erred in failing to find that due process considerations tolled the statute of limitations to allow him reasonable time to file his petition asserting the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Vincent Johnson, on charges of unlawful possession of more than seventy pounds of marijuana. The defendant and the District AttorneyGeneral entered into a plea agreement allowing the defendant to plead guilty to one count of the indictment for an eight-year sentence and petition the trial court for placement in a community corrections program. The trial court rejected the plea agreement and the defendant filed an application for an appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court erred in withholding its approval of the plea agreement based on the defendant’s ineligibility for probation and consequent ineligibility for placement in a community corrections program. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Jose Jordan Rodriguez, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the petitioner pled guilty to possession of a weapon with intent to employ it during the commission of an offense, a Class E felony, and possession with intent to sell over 26 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the petitioner, as agreed, to concurrent sentences of one year and eight years for the respective convictions. The court further ordered that the sentences be served in confinement. On appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately advise him of the consequences of entering the guilty pleas. Following review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Jackie Lynn Foster, Jr., was indicted for first degree premeditated murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty-three years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations, and that the trial court erred in its admission of certain evidence. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction of second degree murder, and that Defendant waived his issue concerning the admissibility of evidence by not filing a timely motion for new trial. Although the trial court erred in applying one enhancement factor in determining the length of Defendant’s sentence, we further conclude that the sentence imposed by the trial court was justified. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, William C. Brothers, pled nolo contendere to two counts of aggravated sexual battery and received an effective sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County which was dismissed. On appeal, the petitioner argues: (1) the indictment was defective; (2) he was no protected from double jeopardy; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the State failed to identify any evidence to prove its allegations. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the denial of relief.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Joseph Wayne Graves, was found guilty of aggravated assault,aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and theft of property valued at more than $500 butless than $1000. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of sixty-three years. On appeal,Defendant alleges: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence; (2)the evidence presented does not support his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm Graves’convictions; however, we conclude that double jeopardy protections require that the convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and theft be merged. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for purposes of merger and for entry of corrected judgments of conviction.

A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Randy Joe McNew, of driving after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender, see T.C.A. § 55-10-616 (2004), violating the vehicle registration law, see id. § 55-5-115, and driving under the influence, see id. § 55-10-401. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of four years to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, argues that a violation of the rule of sequestration rendered a State’s witness incompetent to testify, claims that the trial court erred by refusing to rule prior to trial on the admissibility of evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, and attacks the sentencing decision of the trial court. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Landy M. Clemmons, appeals his convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Knox County for two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony. The trial court merged the two aggravated burglary convictions and sentenced the Defendant to nine years as a Range II, multiple offender for the aggravated burglary and to eleven years as a Range I, violent offender for each of the aggravated kidnappings, to be served concurrently, for an effective eleven-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his convictions for both aggravated burglary and aggravated kidnapping violate principles of due process. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Allen Jean Stephens, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the state’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The petitioner, Clemmie Rhyan, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner, convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony, is currently serving a twenty-two-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1) investigate the case and locate witnesses for the defense; and (2) present evidence, including thorough cross-examination of State witnesses supporting the theory of self-defense. Following review of the record, we find no error in the denial of the petition and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Gregory Allen Cathey, appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Le Tonio Swader, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Rutherford County Circuit Court from his convictions for first degree felony murder; second degree murder, a Class A felony; attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of an offense, a Class E felony. The murder convictions were merged. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of life plus two years. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, which is not a proper post-conviction claim, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for which the petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof. He also argues for the first time in this proceeding that his convictions amounted to double jeopardy. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.