APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years' incarceration. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial because (1) insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction; (2) the trial court made an improper evidentiary ruling; and (3) the trial court gave the jury improper and inadequate instructions. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Campbell County Jury convicted the Defendant of theft of property valued over $10,000, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and simple possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, alleging (1) that insufficient evidence identifying the Defendant as the perpetrator of the felony offenses was presented at trial, and (2) that the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for six counts of sexual battery and one count of aggravated sexual battery, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel and in failing to address as plain error the trial court's erroneous jury instructions on aggravated sexual battery. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for first degree premeditated murder. A Davidson County jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The defendant now appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict, and in particular, that the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Euel Franklin Lockhart, pled guilty to possession of less than .5 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Antonio T. Seay, pled guilty in the Wilson County Criminal Court to possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to one year in the Department of Correction. He appeals upon certified questions of law from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was seized pursuant to a stop and frisk. See T.R.A.P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). He claims that the trial court should have granted his motion because (1) a federal district court had granted his motion to suppress in an earlier federal proceeding and (2) the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. We hold that the trial court was not bound by the federal district court's ruling and affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress.

The petitioner, William Kirk Riley, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petition was properly dismissed without any opportunity to amend, without the appointment of counsel, and without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

The petitioner, Earl Dewayne Holloway, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court and affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Duane Brian Brooks, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to the culpable mental states for first and second degree murder and failed to provide an instruction on causation. Because it is our view that any error with regard to the jury instructions can be classified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Eric James Taylor, Alias, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault. The Defendant now appeals as of right from his murder conviction, alleging seven errors: (1) the trial court should have allowed him to cross-examine a prosecution witness about pending theft charges; (2) the trial court should have instructed the jury about the State's duty to preserve evidence; (3) the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant during closing argument; (4) the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide; (5) the trial court should have allowed him to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the victim's pre-offense surgery; (6) the evidence is not sufficient to support his murder conviction; and (7) a police officer testifying for the State improperly referred to prior contacts with the Defendant. Finding no merit to the Defendant's contentions, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Felix Bartolo Jose, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a class B felony, following a jury trial. The trial court sentenced Jose to an eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Jose raises the single issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction.

The petitioner, Robert I. Gwin, appeals the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the petition. The judgment is affirmed.

The Appellant, James C. Breer, appeals the summary dismissal of his  pro se petition for postconviction relief. The Henry County Circuit Court dismissed Breer’s petition upon the ground that it failed to state a colorable claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(f) (1997). After review, we conclude that a colorable claim is presented and the postconviction   court erred in dismissing Breer’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel. Accordingly, we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Joseph Harold Rucker, appeals the Roane County Criminal Court's imposition of a 23-year Department of Correction sentence for the second-degree murder of his girlfriend, Tommy Jean Trinkle. Because we determine that the length of the Class A, Range I sentence is supported in the record, we affirm.

The Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery by a jury in the Criminal Court for Shelby County, and the trial court sentenced him to sixteen years of confinement as a Range II Multiple Offender. The Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict the Appellant of the charged offense, and (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of robbery and theft. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Charles Weston Elsea, Jr., appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Rhea County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of sexual battery. At the conclusion of a trial, the jury convicted him as charged and fined him one thousand dollars. The trial court subsequently imposed a sentence of one year and six months, of which the defendant was ordered to serve thirty days. After unsuccessfully pursuing a judgment of acquittal or alternatively a new trial in the trial court, the defendant brings this appeal. Herein, he asserts that the record lacks sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a curative instruction to disregard a hearsay statement made by the victim in court, and that the trial court erred in permitting the victim's brother to testify regarding a hearsay statement made by the victim. After reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we find that the defendant has waived one of these claims and that the remaining issues merit no relief. We, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction.

The defendant, Marvin L. Jones, appeals the trial court's revocation of a community corrections sentence. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. The judgment is affirmed.

The appellant, Gregory Dale Clayton, was found guilty by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI). The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Davidson County Jail. Additionally, the appellant pled guilty to a violation of the implied consent law and suffered the forfeiture of his driver's license for one year. On appeal, the appellant raises two issues relating to the rendering of the jury's verdict. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant Olean W. Thompson, pled guilty to theft of property $1,000 or more in value and aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a bench trial, he was found guilty of his four remaining indicted charges, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court then sentenced the defendant to serve two years for his theft conviction, eight years for his robbery conviction, and twenty years for each of his kidnapping convictions. The court then ordered the defendant to serve these sentences concurrently, resulting in a twenty-year aggregate sentence. The defendant now appeals his convictions and sentence, claiming that his due process rights were violated by his four convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and that the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences for each of his kidnapping convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm the defendant's convictions and sentence.

The petitioner, Terrell Burgess, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to first degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault and his resulting effective sentence of life plus ten years in the Department of Correction (DOC). He contends (1) that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

The defendant, Tammy Annette Burruss, was convicted by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of theft of a vehicle worth more than $10,000, a Class C felony, for which she received a four-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. She contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court erred by allowing the state to impeach her with a prior bad check conviction pursuant to Tenn. R. Evid. 609(b). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.