APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Abel Caberra Torres, was convicted of attempted especially aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and attempted aggravated assault. The trial court merged the last two offenses into the attempted second degree murder convictions and ordered consecutive sentences of twelve years for each offense, for an effective sentence of thirty-six years. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence was not sufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statements to police; (3) that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; and (4) that the sentence was excessive. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Because of the misapplication of enhancement factors, each of the sentences are modified to ten years. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further findings on the consecutive sentencing issue.

The Defendant pled guilty to one count of facilitation of the possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony. In accordance with her plea agreement, she was sentenced to a term of six years, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered her sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not granting her probation or some other form of alternative sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In a bench trial, the Obion County trial court convicted the defendant, Jonathan Dean, of sexual battery and sentenced him to two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner was originally convicted of second degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, forgery, and theft and received an effective thirty-three-year sentence. In this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner argues the post-conviction court erred in finding she failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Robert Lee Fox, appeals the sentencing decision of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. Fox entered a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(B) "open" plea to conspiracy to commit first degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Fox argues that the sentence is improper because (1) it is disparate to the sentence received by his co-defendant and (2) four enhancement factors were erroneously applied. After review, we find no error and affirm the decision of the trial court.

The petitioner, Clinton Wayne Lynch, appeals from the order of the trial court denying his petition requesting forensic DNA analysis of evidence related to the investigation and prosecution which resulted in the petitioner's conviction for second degree murder entered upon his plea of guilty in 1986. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Tracy Larenzo Goodwin, of two counts of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; one count of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; and one count of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of twelve years in the Department of Correction (DOC) for the reckless aggravated assault convictions. For the reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide convictions, the defendant received six-year sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the reckless aggravated assault sentences for an effective sentence of eighteen years. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the aggravated assault offenses from the reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide offenses; (3) that his convictions for reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide violate protections against double jeopardy; and (4) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Walter Clyde Rainey, Jr., was convicted by a jury in the Wayne County Circuit Court of seven counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and seven counts of statutory rape. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by consolidating the offenses for trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in its ruling regarding the admissibility of the testimony of prosecution witness Tabitha Smith; (4) whether the prosecution's closing argument was improper; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Randall A. Myers, appeals the revocation of his community correction sentences by the Blount County Circuit Court. Myers pled guilty to seven counts of deceptive business practices and eight counts of theft, and he received an effective four-year sentence. As a result of these convictions, he was placed on intensive probation but, following violations of his release, he was re-sentenced to community corrections. Myers then proceeded to violate his community corrections agreement, and the trial court ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Myers asserts that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the violations occurred. After review of the record before us, we find no error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was found guilty of robbery. His sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of theft. Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. However, we conclude the failure to instruct the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Cortland Keshira Cates, pled guilty to two counts of rape. The trial court sentenced him to eight years' incarceration for each count, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying probation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Blount County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of simple possession or casual exchange of Lorazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance, and on one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver an E felony amount of marijuana, a schedule VI controlled substance. After unsuccessfully seeking suppression of the items seized in the search involved in this case, the defendant waived his right to a trial by jury. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the lower court found the defendant guilty as charged. The trial court later sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the simple possession offense and eighteen months for the possession with intent to sell or deliver offense. Though otherwise placed on supervised probation, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve sixteen days of these sentences on eight consecutive weekends. The defendant subsequently filed a new trial motion alleging that the trial court erred in not suppressing the aforementioned evidence and that the proof is insufficient to support the E felony conviction. The trial court denied this motion, and the defendant appeals the denial to this Court raising the same issues. After a review of the record and relevant authorities, we find that the defendant's suppression claim has merit though the sufficiency allegation does not. Because of our finding regarding the suppression matter, we must reverse and remand the defendant's convictions.

A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant, Brigitte Pauli, of three counts of theft of property over $60,000, one count of theft of property over $1,000, and one count of forgery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years and ordered the defendant to pay $4,458,203 as restitution. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in prohibiting the defendant from questioning a witness regarding an alleged prior bad act by another witness; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the values and costs of producing various products; (4) the state made an untimely and improper election of offenses; (5) the trial court erred in allowing the state to present the testimony of a rebuttal witness; (6) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight; and (7) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Upon our review, we merge the three counts of theft over $60,000 into one conviction and remand for a redetermination of restitution. Otherwise, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Betsy F. Speer, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of driving under the influence. The appellant subsequently acknowledged that she was guilty of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced the appellant to the mandatory forty-five days in jail, followed by a probationary period of ten months and fourteen days. The trial court also revoked the appellant's driver's license for a period of two years and imposed a seven hundred fifty dollar ($750) fine. On appeal, the appellant contends that the State failed to comply with her Rule 16 motion for discovery. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals after being denied post-conviction relief. She originally pled guilty to three counts of facilitation of first degree murder and received a forty-five-year sentence. She alleges that her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered. She further alleges that her trial counsel knew that her co-defendant made exonerating statements, and she would not have pled guilty if she had known of her co-defendant's exonerating statements. After careful review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court's findings. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Robin A. Conner, pled guilty to robbery, and the Blount County trial court sentenced her to three years' incarceration as a Range I standard offender. The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Jamie H. Jones, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of five counts of forgery and received a total effective sentence of eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises several issues for our review, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the correctness of the trial court's rulings, the propriety of the sentences imposed, and the denial of the appellant's motion for new trial. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Debra Foster, pled guilty to seven counts of attempt to obtain possession of a controlled substance by fraud, Class D felonies. She received an effective sentence of eight years as a Range II, multiple offender. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Dexter Lee Spence, entered a guilty plea to second degree murder. The trial court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the sentence was excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Came the appellants, THURMAN L. WHITSEY and CHARLIE MAE WHITSEY, by counsel, and the state, by the Attorney General, and this case was heard on the record on appeal from the Criminal Court of Davidson County; and upon consideration thereof, this court is of the opinion that our original judgment entered April 23, 2003, should be vacated; that there is reversible error in the judgments of the trial court relating only to the weapons offense under Count 5; and the case should be remanded for a re-sentencing determination relating to appellant, Charlie Mae Whitsey.

The defendant, Christopher Alan White, appeals as of right his conviction by a Blount County Circuit Court jury for aggravated assault and the resulting ten-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender. He contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument required a mistrial, and (3) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction.

Aggrieved that the lower court denied post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner, Jeffrey Whitaker, appeals and claims that his convictions resulted from the ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary guilty pleas. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Appellant, Romey Stone, appeals the decision of the Grainger County Circuit Court revoking his placement in the community corrections program and ordering service of his original sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Stone argues that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by relying on unreliable evidence in revoking his community corrections sentences, and (2) he was denied due process based upon the lack of a "neutral and detached" fact-finder. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant brings this appeal and contends the following: (1) The participation of a special prosecutor, hired by the victim's family, is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights; (2) The trial court erroneously denied defense counsel the opportunity to cross-examine the driver of the vehicle containing the victim, Fernando Hawkins; (3) The trial court failed to give a curative instruction after Detective Hawkins stated that he obtained a warrant for first degree murder of the defendant; (4) The trial court failed to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of facilitation of second degree murder; and (5) The trial court erroneously sentenced the defendant to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. We conclude the trial court did not err and affirm the judgments of the trial court.