APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Jashua Shannon Sides, alias Joshua Shannon Sides, was convicted of vehicular homicide by reckless conduct (Class C felony); leaving the scene of an accident involving death (Class E felony); reckless endangerment (Class E felony); and driving under the influence (Class A misdemeanor). The defendant received an effective sentence of ten years, eleven months and
twenty-nine days. On appeal, the defendant raises four issues:
(1) The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of felony reckless endangerment and knowingly leaving the scene of an accident involving death.
(2) The trial court erred in denying counsel’s motion to withdraw after the defendant had filed a complaint against counsel with the Board of Professional Responsibility.
(3) The trial court erred in allowing the State’s expert to testify to his opinion based on hearsay and facts not in evidence.
(4) The trial court erred in sentencing.
After review, we have found no reversible error and affirm all convictions and sentences.

The Petitioner, Billy R. Shelly, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Rudolph Powers, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural prerequisites for seeking habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Craig L. Beene, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial  court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Nathaniel Henderson, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Appellant, Naomi Lovell Preyer, appeals the sentencing decision of the Tipton County Circuit Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Preyer pled guilty to identity theft and forgery, both Class D felonies. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twelve years, as a career offender, for each conviction and ordered that the sentences be served in confinement. On appeal, Preyer asserts that the trial court’s denial of a community corrections sentence was error.   Following review of the record, we affirm.

The petitioner, William Miller, pleaded guilty to sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and two counts of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, Class C felonies, in exchange for an effective sentence of 12 years. On post-conviction appeal, the petitioner argues that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced and entered without an understanding of the consequences, that the prosecution failed to disclose favorable evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate alibis and inform him of opportunities to appeal motions. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

A Weakley County jury convicted the Petitioner, Peter Graves, of possession of both a schedule II and a schedule IV drug with intent to sell or deliver, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of fifteen years. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner now appeals, claiming: (1) he was denied the right to a fair trial because the jury saw him in handcuffs and shackles; (2) he was denied the right to a fair trial because the trial court did not conduct a jury out hearing when jurors wanted to ask him questions; and (3) he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel. Upon a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Appellant, William Justin Brewster, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Brewster argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief on his asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel both during trial and on appeal. Upon thorough review, we conclude that the post-conviction court correctly denied the petition and affirm.

Appellant, David Harold Hammond, was convicted by a Madison County jury of one count of rape.  As a result, the trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range II multiple offender to twelve years incarceration. Because Appellant was on probation at the time the rape was committed, the trial court ordered Appellant’s sentence to run consecutively to two existing felony sentences. Appellant complains on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the rape conviction and that the trial court improperly ordered him to serve his sentence for rape consecutively to his existing sentences. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the trial court properly sentenced Appellant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Joey Dewayne Thompson, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of 25 years to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant claims that the conviction of second degree murder is unsupported by sufficient evidence, that the verdicts are contradictory, that the prosecution for and conviction of second degree murder violated principles of double jeopardy, and that the prosecution was barred by principles of collateral estoppel. Following our review, we affirm the convictions.

Defendant, Gary M. Carter, pled guilty to statutory rape, a Class E felony, with the length and manner of service of his sentence to be determined following a sentencing hearing. Defendant received a sentence of two years to be served in split confinement with nine months incarceration followed by four years probation. Defendant argues, on appeal, (1) that the trial court erred in denying full probation and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion and not articulating the reasons on the record. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the denial of judicial diversion and reverse the imposition of the sentence of nine months incarceration and remand to the trial court for an entry of an amended judgment imposing 7.2 months incarceration followed by four years probation.

The Appellant, James Alan Bates, appeals the order of the Sullivan County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted ineffective assistance of counsel. Bates contends that trial counsel was ineffective based upon the following: (1) failing to call a DNA expert as a witness at trial; (2) failing to utilize an investigator to aid in locating potential defense witnesses; (3) failing to adequately communicate and report developments in preparation of the defense at trial and on appeal; (4) failing to file a motion for a speedy trial; and (5) failing to provide “street clothes” for incarcerated defense witnesses, who testified while wearing their jail uniforms.  After review, we affirm.

A Shelby County jury found the Defendant, Cameron Winselle, guilty of two counts of first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences. On appeal, the Defendant claims the evidence does not sufficiently support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court dismiss the above-captioned appeal or, in the alternative, affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief and has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void.  Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendant, Ronnie Henry, was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and four counts of robbery, a Class C felony. The defendant received an effective sentence of seventy years. On appeal, the defendant presents three issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions; (2) error in the limitation of the testimony of a defense witness; and (3) error in sentencing. After review, we affirm the convictions but remand the case for resentencing in compliance with the standards contained in this opinion.

The petitioner, Freddie T. Inman, Jr., sought post-conviction relief from his conviction of theft of property having a value of more than $1,000 but less than $10,000. The McNairy County Circuit Court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to subpoena and call three witnesses at trial. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Faith Whitley, the defendant, was indicted for possession with intent to deliver over one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class E felony. After a motion to suppress was heard and denied, the defendant entered a guilty plea with an agreed sentence of one year on probation and a fine of $2000. The judgment purported to reserve certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). After review, we conclude that the defendant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The appeal is dismissed.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has remanded this case for further consideration of the defendant’s sentencing in light of State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn., Oct. 9, 2007). Although the defendant’s original 23-year sentence1 involved the use of enhancement factors that violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, we hold that the sentence of 23 years is not plain error. Accordingly, the 23-year sentence is affirmed.

In this case, the majority holds that the defendant failed to contest the question of Officer Cousins’s unavailability and, thus, under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(a), is not entitled to relief on this issue. I respectfully disagree.

In October 2004, a Sullivan County grand jury indicted the defendant, Thomas Harville, Jr., on one count of violating his status as a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony. Following a June 2005 jury trial in Sullivan County Criminal Court, the defendant was convicted on the sole count of the indictment and sentenced to two years as a Range I, standard offender, with the defendant to serve eighty days in jail and the balance of his sentence on community corrections. The defendant appeals, alleging that the trial court: (1) improperly admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of a police officer when the state failed to show that the witness was unavailable at trial; (2) improperly determined that the state could impeach the defendant with a prior felony conviction for evading arrest; and (3) improperly sentenced the defendant. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant has waived the first issue on appeal and that the trial court committed no error as to the other two issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of  the trial court.

This matter is before the court upon the Defendant’s appeal from an order of the trial court denying the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly entered; and (2) his intended sentences could not be achieved by operation of law. Because we conclude that the defendant’s guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly entered, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The defendant, Corey Montez Rickman, pled guilty in 2002 to four counts of aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of thirty-two years, with three years to be served in the Sumner County Jail and twenty-nine years on community corrections. In 2006 he acknowledged violating the terms of his community corrections sentence after testing positive for cocaine, and the trial court ordered that the remainder of his sentence be served in the Department of Correction, which the defendant appealed. We conclude that the defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery disqualified him for community corrections and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

I join with the majority, but write separately for the following reasons.

The Defendant, Bretran R. Thompson, was disbarred in 1996. In 2004, the Defendant was indicted in two, two-count indictments each for impersonation of a licensed professional and theft, with a different victim in each indictment. In 2005, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for contempt against the Defendant alleging he violated his disbarment order from 1996. The Defendant pled guilty to contempt and was sentenced to fifty days in jail. He then moved to dismiss the two indictments in Shelby County Criminal Court. After argument, the trial court dismissed the two charges of impersonation of a licensed professional on double jeopardy grounds but refused to dismiss the two theft charges. The State sought interlocutory appeal under Rule 9 contesting the dismissal of the impersonation of a licensed professional charges, which  was joined by the Defendant contesting the non-dismissal of the theft charges. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgments of the trial court. We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying dismissal of the theft charges, but reverse the judgment of the trial court dismissing the charges of impersonation of a licensed professional. The case is remanded for further proceedings on both sets of charges.