APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Gary Aldridge, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Dewayne Jones, of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony. Because the two counts alleged alternative theories of the same offense, the trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, alleging that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, including that the State did not prove venue was in Shelby County; (2) the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect which of the aggravated rape counts it wished to proceed upon; and (3) the trial court misapplied one enhancement factor. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Mario Andre McElrath, was convicted by an Obion County jury of attempted sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class B felony, and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction and a fine of $2000. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the State’s violation of the rule of sequestration and in finding that the Drug-Free School Zone Act included criminal attempt as an offense that triggers increased sanctions. We conclude that these claims are without merit. However, based upon our plain error review, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the Drug-Free School Zone Act to enhance the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.

Following a jury trial Defendant, Steven Allen Jones, was found guilty of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder and (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to the punishment for first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the result that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but respectfully, I disagree with the holding that the habeas corpus petition was filed in an appropriate court.

The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Arthur Buford, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of first degree murder. See
T.C.A. § 39-13-202. He was sentenced to two life sentences to be served consecutively. The
petitioner contends the trial court erred in denying him post-conviction relief based upon the
ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that no error exists and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.

The petitioner, Rodney R. Rye, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of child rape, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and his resulting effective twenty-two-year sentence. He contends that he entered guilty pleas that were unknowing and involuntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and we affirm that judgment.

The Appellant, Jacob Edward Campbell, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. After a jury trial in 2002, Campbell was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery, and he was ordered to serve consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and ten years. On appeal, Campbell argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record on appeal and the arguments of the parties, we affirm.

Appellant, Carlos Bush, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to serve fifteen years in incarceration as a Range II multiple offender.  After the denial of a motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify regarding Appellant’s prior incarceration; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (5) whether the trial court improperly refused to grant a recess to allow Appellant to prepare curative measures for alleged evidentiary errors; and (6) whether the trial court improperly enhanced Appellant’s sentence by applying an enhancement factor that was not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the photographic lineup was proper and that the trial court did not improperly admit hearsay or statements about Appellant’s prior incarceration. With regard to Appellant’s sentence, we determine that review of the issue is not necessary to do substantial justice, and consequently, that no plain error was committed on the part of the trial court. Further, the application of enhancement factors (1) and (16) justified the enhancement of Appellant’s sentence from twelve years to fifteen years. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life in prison for first degree murder and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two itnesses, a forensic psychologist and the defendant’s mother, who would have offered testimony regarding the defendant’s ability to form the requisite culpable mental state. The defendant also contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the two witnesses, and that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Carl Johnson, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Johnson, who was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, is currently serving a sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. Following the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal, Johnson filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied. On appeal, this court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing “solely on the petitioner’s complaint of the ineffective assistance of counsel regarding lesser-included offense instructions and Owens.” Following an evidentiary hearing, during which Johnson challenged only trial counsel’s failure to request that aggravated assault be charged as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated robbery, the post-conviction court again denied relief finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the lesser charge. In the instant appeal, Johnson challenges the denial of  relief. Following a review of the record and the law applicable at the time of trial, we find no reversible error and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Paul Welcome, appeals the denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis. He asserts he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he is entitled to relief based upon newly discovered evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Derrick Settles, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of possession of over .5 ounces of marijuana with the intent to sell. The jury sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for one murder conviction, and the trial court ordered a consecutive life sentence for the other. The trial court also merged the possession offenses into a single conviction and imposed a concurrent sentence of one year for that conviction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of his apartment and his confession because he lacked the intellectual capacity to validly consent to the search or effectively waive the rights guaranteed him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Michael Ware, 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, Michael W. Smith, 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, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction 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. As we conclude that the petition for post-conviction relief was time-barred, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Torian Benson,1 appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. 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. As we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition
for habeas corpus. 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. As we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendant, John William Matkin, III, was convicted by a Sevier County Circuit Court jury of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to serve six years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, that the trial court committed reversible error with respect to the jury instructions, and that he was improperly sentenced. Upon review, we hold that the defendant is not entitled to relief and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Edward Ray Armstrong, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Dyer County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. In 2006, the Petitioner pled guilty as a Range I, standard offender to theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to subpoena his medical records and to adequately prepare for trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Andreco Boone, appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court improperly admitted a photo spread during the trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The petitioner, Sean Williams, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief and alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, which was denied by the post-conviction court following a hearing. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition and specifically contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a jury instruction for facilitation. After review, we conclude that trial counsel was not ineffective, and we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Darnell Lavelle Welch, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

The petitioner, Marshall Donnell Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel and entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.