APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant pled guilty in the Union County Criminal Court to theft over ten thousand dollars, a class C felony, and official misconduct, a class E felony. Pursuant to her plea agreement, she received a total effective sentence of three years to be served on probation. The sole issue on appeal is the trial court’s denial of her application for judicial diversion. Upon review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Petitioner, Bobby Lee, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Gene Booker, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in that counsel failed to properly preserve the petitioner’s severance issue on direct appeal. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Thomas Michael Kesterson, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Lake County Circuit Court alleging that his conviction for incest is void because it includes an illegal sentence. The habeas court denied the petition finding that the petitioner was properly sentenced. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant, Tiwon Anton Harvell, was convicted of one count of attempted second degree murder and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon. He was sentenced as a Range I, Standard offender to fourteen years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he contends that (1) the State produced evidence insufficient to convict him of either charge beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the trial court erred in sentencing him. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Travis Lester, was convicted of reckless homicide, a Class D felony, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jamie Tenerio Rice, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sumner County Criminal Court. Following his guilty plea to sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, the trial court imposed a nine-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that his sentence is excessive and that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Calvin Scott, appeals as of right the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner alleged that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Vicki Hogan, of driving under the influence (DUI) and DUI per se. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the appellant to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as ten days in jail and the remainder on probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that both of her convictions should be reversed because the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce into evidence the result of her breathalyzer test, which the Memphis Police Department administered more than three hours after her arrest, in direct contravention to the plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated section upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appellant’s DUI per se conviction should be reversed. However, the appellant has waived her claim regarding the DUI conviction because she failed to comply with Rule 24(c), Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires that an appellant’s statement of the evidence convey a “complete account of what transpired with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal.”

The Defendant, Johnny Benard Temple, was convicted of eight counts of delivery of .5 ounces or more of marijuana, a Schedule VI controlled substance, and two counts of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. He was sentenced as a career offender to an effective sentence of 102 years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court improperly denied his two requests for a continuance; and (2) the trial court ordered consecutive sentencing in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 We conclude that these arguments lack merit and accordingly affirm. Because of certain inconsistencies between the Defendant’s sentences as announced at his sentencing hearing and his sentences as recorded on his judgment forms, however, we remand for clarification and entry of corrected judgments.

The Defendant-Appellant, Ricky Terrell Cox (hereinafter “Cox”), was convicted by a jury of three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony, attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to twenty-two years at one hundred percent for the three especially aggravated kidnapping convictions and four years at thirty percent for the aggravated assault convictions, to be served concurrently. He was also sentenced to nine years at thirty percent for the especially aggravated burglary conviction, nine years at thirty percent for the attempted second degree murder conviction, and eighteen months at thirty percent for the unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, which were to be served concurrently to one another but consecutively to the especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault convictions, for an effective sentence of thirty-one years. On appeal, Cox argues that (1) the trial court erred by admitting his prior juvenile conviction for impeachment purposes, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, (3) the State failed to prevent or correct the false testimony of two of the State’s witnesses, and (4) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ira Ishmael Muhammad, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of attempted second degree murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and two counts of aggravated assault. Based upon the imposition of consecutive sentencing, he received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner argues that: (1) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence based upon application of enhancement factors absent a finding by the jury and in imposing a consecutive sentence; (2) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to request recusal of the trial judge and district attorney and appellate counsel’s failure to pursue two issues on direct appeal; and (3) he should not have been convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter as the crime is an impossibility under the law. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Janis Sue Watson, appeals the order of the Hamblen County Criminal Court that dismissed her petition for post-conviction relief. The criminal court held that the petition, which challenged the petitioner’s 2004 convictions of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, was barred by the statute of limitations. The State has moved this court to summarily affirm the order of dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of the Court of Criminal Appeals 20. Because the record supports the State’s motion, we affirm the order of the criminal court pursuant to Rule 20.

The defendant, William Eugene Cantrell, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and burglary of a motor vehicle, a Class E felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to three years and one year, to be served consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of continuous confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Because the state, as the appellant, failed to meet its burden of proving that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by suppressing the evidence, I must respectfully dissent from the majority.

Defendant, Re’Licka Dejuan Allen, was indicted on two counts of aggravated exploitation of a minor and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. The State refused to comply with Defendant’s requests for discovery by withholding the contents of Defendant’s computer hard drive and other computer materials alleged to contain incriminating evidence. The State refused to disclose the requested discovery despite the trial court’s issuance of two protective orders, the ruling of the appellate court on interlocutory appeal, and a third protective order by the trial court requiring disclosure. After a final hearing, the trial court suppressed the evidence and dismissed the indictment against Defendant. The State argues on appeal that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence based upon the perceived threat of federal prosecution to defense counsel. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, reinstate the indictment and remand for trial.

The petitioner, Bryan Lee Cable, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal he asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Lavon Mario Davis, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Knox County from his convictions for second degree murder and attempted first degree murder, both Class A felonies. He was sentenced to twenty years for the second degree murder conviction and twenty-five years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty-five years. He contends that: he received ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court lacked authority to accept the guilty plea to second degree murder; and the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept his guilty plea to attempted first degree murder. We affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, George Allen King, pled guilty to one count of robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sentenced to eight years as a Range II multiple offender. He was placed on enhanced probation. After the revocation of his probation within a year of his plea, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not entered into voluntarily. At the conclusion of a hearing on the matter, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred because Petitioner was under the influence of drugs at the time he entered the plea and that he believed he was to receive a six-year sentence as opposed to an eight-year sentence. Because we find no credible evidence in the record to support Petitioner’s claims, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Omowale A. Shabazz, filed in the Morgan County Circuit Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. The State filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the habeas corpus court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After review, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Raymond Writer, filed in the Johnson County Criminal Court a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, alleging that his sentence was void because the trial court did not follow the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner did not allege a ground upon which habeas corpus relief could be granted. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the habeas corpus court’s ruling. In response, the State 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. After review, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Kevin B. Thompson, appeals from the Hardin County Circuit Court’s probation revocation for his two-year effective sentence for his guilty pleas to violation of a motor vehicle habitual offender order, a Class E felony, and violation of the registration law, a Class C misdemeanor. He claims that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in incarceration. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm its judgment.

Defendant, Michael Small, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated
robbery and sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years in the
Department of Correction. Defendant raised several issues in his original direct appeal, including
whether the trial court erred in finding that he had implicitly waived his right to the assistance of
counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. Without addressing the other issues, this court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing with respect to the implicit waiver or forfeiture of counsel issue. See State v. Michael Small, No. W2003-02014-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 3327845, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 15, 2006). At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Defendant had forfeited his right to counsel by physically assaulting his attorney. Defendant now appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court erred in finding that his actions warranted the forfeiture of counsel, and (2) the trial court should have granted his motion for recusal. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that the defendant was not entitled to a mistrial after Jimmy Calloway testified in rebuttal that the defendant said he did not want to “go back to prison for six more years.” A criminal defendant is entitled to impartial and unbiased jurors who are not influenced by inadmissible and prejudicial information such as the defendant’s being convicted of another crime. See State v. Claybrook, 736 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1987).