APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Samuel McAlister, pled guilty in case number 05-228 to two counts of sale or delivery of cocaine, Class C felonies, and one count of sale or delivery of more than .5 gram of cocaine, a Class B felony. In case number 05-493, the defendant pled guilty to an additional count of sale or delivery of more than .5 gram of cocaine, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and one count of possession of a weapon with intent to employ it in an offense, a Class E felony. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the defendant received an effective sentence of eight years to be served under community corrections supervision. The trial court subsequently revoked the community corrections sentences and resentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of twelve years in the custody of the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the Madison County Circuit Court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Keary Lee Chearis, was convicted of five counts of delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years on each count. The trial court imposed partial consecutive sentencing for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the offenses, ruling that the State properly authenticated video recordings offered as evidence, overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument, enhancing his sentences beyond the statutory minimum, and imposing consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that it was error to deny the defendant’s motion to sever the offenses, but such error was harmless. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The State of Tennessee appeals the sentencing decision of the Maury County Circuit Court. After his probation was revoked, the defendant, Brandon Dailey, entered a plea of guilty to the sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony. Thereafter, the court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment and ordered that his sentence run concurrently with his prior sentences. On appeal, the state argues that the trial court erred in imposing sentence without considering enhancement and mitigating factors and for failing to state on the record its reasons for the sentence in contravention of procedure established by the Sentencing Reform Act. Upon a full review of the record, arguments of counsel and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new sentencing hearing consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Tommy Lee Clark, was convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony; and possession of a deadly weapon other than a firearm with the intent to employ it during the commission of a dangerous offense, a Class E felony.  The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years, twelve years, and six years, respectively, and ordered that each sentence run consecutively for an effective sentence of thirty-three years. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated burglary and attempted aggravated burglary because the State presented no proof regarding his intent to commit a theft; (2) the indictment for attempted aggravated burglary was defective because it did not state an essential element of the offense; (3) the trial court erred in holding that a box cutter is a deadly weapon; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Torian Dillard, was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to twenty years as a Range II, violent offender. He argues that the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify with her back to him and by reseating a juror against whom he had exercised a peremptory challenge. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Glen Andrew Adams, was charged with Class C felony manufacture of marijuana. The Defendant applied for pretrial diversion, and the district attorney general denied his request. The trial court reversed, concluding that the district attorney abused his discretion and ordering that the Defendant be placed on pretrial diversion. The State appeals. Following our review of the record, the judgment of the Cocke County Circuit Court ordering the district attorney general to grant the Defendant diversion is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Raymond Belcher, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that his conviction is void or his sentence illegal, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s summary dismissal of the petition.

In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State challenges the trial court’s suppression of the defendant’s June 23, 2003 statement to police. Because we agree that the defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as certain statutory rights, were violated in the procuring of the statement, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Benjamin A. McAlister, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to simple possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia subject to reservation of a certified question on appeal. The Defendant then applied for and was granted judicial diversion under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313. On appeal, the Defendant presents the following certified question for our review: whether he voluntarily consented to the search of his residence. As provided by our diversion statute, no judgment of conviction was entered and, as such, we conclude that the Defendant has no appeal as of right. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Petitioner, George A. Johnson, was convicted by a Sevier County Jury of rape and statutory rape. As a result, he received an effective sentence of twenty years. Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to this Court. See State v. George A. Johnson, No. E2003-02881-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 225025, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 31, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 2, 2005). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction review on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, determining that Petitioner failed to carry the burden required for post-conviction relief. We agree and, therefore, affirm the denial of the post-conviction petition.

The defendant, Sarah Michelle Vinson, appeals her Lincoln County Circuit Court convictions of two counts of forgery. In this appeal, she contends that she was improperly denied alternative sentencing and that her sentences are excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant, Gerald Sanford, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction on one count of first degree murder. In this appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the crime. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Nikia Grasty, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Appellant, Lewis Jeffrey Cox, was arrested for public intoxication. Appellant was a registered violent sex offender at the time of his arrest. He failed to inform the arresting officers or the facility where he was held that he was a registered violent sex offender. Subsequently, Appellant was indicted by the Bedford County Grand Jury for failure to inform the incarcerating facility that he was a registered violent sex offender under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-204(e). Appellant pled guilty to the charge. In a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to six years as a career offender. Appellant appeals his sentence to this Court. On appeal, he argues that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-204 carries no penal provision, and the penal provisions included in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-208 do not apply to his failure to inform the facility of his status as a registered violent sex offender. After a thorough review of the applicable laws, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Kenneth J. Cradic, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child (Class A felony), and three counts of incest (Class C felony). He was sentenced to twenty years for each Class A felony and four years for each Class C felony. The trial court ordered that two of the Class A felony convictions be served consecutive to each other but concurrent to the third conviction and that the three Class C felony convictions be served consecutive to each other and concurrent to the Class A felonies, for a total effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the sentence is improper, and that the trial court improperly denied his motion to sever his offenses and to suppress his statement. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court.

The appellant urges this court to reverse the post-conviction court’s decision denying him post-conviction relief based upon his allegation that trial counsel’s failure to explain to him, prior to his plea of guilty, the extent of his obligations under the community supervision provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-524 constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to undermine the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Specifically, he complains that had counsel informed him adequately regarding the requirements of lifetime community supervision, including the possible associated monthly cost of forty-five dollars, he would not have entered his guilty pleas to aggravated sexual battery and automobile burglary. The appellant claims and counsel conceded at the evidentiary hearing that this omission rendered his guilty plea involuntary, unintelligent and unknowing.

The Petitioner, Chad Alan Parker, pled nolo contendre to one count of aggravated sexual battery and one count of burglary of an automobile. The trial court sentenced him to ten years of incarceration and community supervision for life for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, and to two years for the burglary conviction. The trial court ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was amended by appointed counsel, alleging he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the issues and applicable authorities, we reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand the case for the Petitioner to withdraw his best interest plea.

The petitioner, Marcellus Hurt, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to exercise his influence and persuade the petitioner to plead guilty. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to allege any ground which would establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court.

The petitioner, Larry C. Pittman, pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues that he is entitled to relief under Blakely because he submits that he was sentenced illegally. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After careful review, we conclude that the habeas court’s summary dismissal of the petition was appropriate, and we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The Appellant, Walter Pablo, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court in ordering that his sentence for DUI, first offense, be served in total confinement. Pablo and the State reached a guilty plea agreement providing that he would plead guilty to DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, and failure to appear, and receive an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with fifteen days to be served in confinement and the balance to served on probation. At a guilty plea hearing, after questioning by the trial court, Pablo provided information to the court that he was a Mexican citizen, and that he did not know whether the federal authorities were aware of his presence in this country. After four days of guilty plea proceedings over a period from August 7, 2007, to August 28, 2007, during which Pablo was in confinement, the trial court rejected the guilty plea agreement insofar as it provided for a probationary sentence. Pablo was allowed the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, which he declined. The trial court then summarily sentenced Pablo to eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration in the workhouse for the DUI conviction. On appeal, Pablo argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation based solely upon his perceived status as an illegal alien. After review, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Pablo’s presence in the United States was unlawful and that the trial court’s summary sentencing decision failed to consider relevant principles of sentencing in denying probation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for resentencing.

The Appellant, Devin James, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court after a jury found him guilty of the reckless homicide of Rodney Steward. After a sentencing hearing, James received a thirty-month sentence in the “workhouse,” with all but ninety days suspended, followed by five years of probation. On appeal, James argues: (1) that the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion was error; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant him full probation; and (3) that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence six months beyond the presumptive minimum and in imposing a probationary term of five years. After thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm.

The petitioner, Geraldrick Jones, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, he sought post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleged that trial counsel (1) should have requested dismissal of the indictment or a special jury instruction after the State lost samples of his blood; (2) should have moved to suppress evidence found after the police searched his home; (3) and failed to object to improper closing remarks by the State. The post-conviction court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove these claims and dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Morris Neal Davis, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the trial court was without authority or jurisdiction to sentence him outside his statutory sentencing range and, further, that the court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him above the statutory minimum sentence. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to allege any ground which would render the judgments of conviction void, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the Hardeman County Circuit Court.

The Defendant, Lana Billings Henry, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court. In October 2007, the Defendant entered guilty pleas to multiple counts of forgery and theft. Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendant received an effective six-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender, and the manner of service was submitted to the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve her sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that a sentence of community corrections was appropriate. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Bernard Henry, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that the dismissal was erroneous because he did not receive the effective assistance of trial counsel and because the post-conviction court improperly prevented him from presenting evidence that his appellate counsel was ineffective. After a review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred in denying the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Accordingly, the case is remanded for further proceedings.