APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Jeffrey M. English, was charged with three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated assault. He entered open pleas of guilt to the three counts of aggravated robbery, and the State nolled the aggravated assault count. A sentencing hearing was conducted, and Petitioner received a sixteen year sentence for each of the three counts of aggravated robbery. Petitioner also received an eight year sentence for a probation violation, which Petitioner conceded. The trial court ordered all four sentences to be served consecutively, resulting in a total effective sentence of fifty-six years. Petitioner's sentence was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. State v. Jeffrey English, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 911, No. M1999-02495-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, November 22, 2000) perm. to appeal denied April 9, 2001. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was appointed new counsel, and he subsequently filed an amended petition. An evidentiary hearing was conducted, and the trial court denied the petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Cocke County jury found the Defendant guilty of theft of property valued over $500 and of burglary of a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender to three years for each conviction and ordered that the sentences run concurrently to each other but consecutively to prior sentences in Jefferson County. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that insufficient evidence was presented to convict the Defendant of theft and burglary. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Matthew Melton Jackson, appeals the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court following his guilty plea to aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, theft of property over $500.00 and two counts of aggravated rape. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant appeals his convictions of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder. The defendant argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence at trial to support his convictions. We disagree. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in not charging the jury on second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses of felony murder. We agree but conclude the error was harmless and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendants, Clarence Carnell Gaston, Miqwon Deon Leach, and Mario Deangalo Thomas, were convicted by an Obion County Circuit Court jury of conspiracy to commit second degree murder, second degree murder, and first degree felony murder. Finding aggravating circumstances (3) and (7) applicable to both Leach and Thomas, and aggravating circumstances (2), (3), and (7) applicable to Gaston, the jury sentenced each defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder convictions. The trial court merged the second degree murder convictions into the convictions for felony murder and sentenced the defendants to eight years for the conspiracy convictions, to be served concurrently to their life sentences without possibility of parole. All three defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Leach and Thomas each raise issues regarding the appropriateness of their life sentences without parole, and Thomas raises two additional issues of whether his trial should have been severed, and whether the verdicts of first degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit second degree murder are impermissibly inconsistent. After a thorough review of the record and of applicable law, we affirm the judgments of conviction and the sentences imposed. However, we remand to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment form for Gaston's conspiracy conviction to reflect that he was found guilty by a jury.

The petitioner, Richard Lynn Norton, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner, Crystal Rena Sturgill, appeals from the Greene County Criminal Court's denying her post-conviction relief from her convictions for three counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of Class D felony theft. Essentially, she contends (1) that her guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, (2) that due process was violated by the mass sentencing procedure, and (3) that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jessie Jones, appeals as of right his conviction by a Shelby County jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends (1) that the trial court should have instructed the jury on self-defense and (2) that attempted second degree murder is not an offense in Tennessee. Although we hold that attempted second degree murder is an offense, we reverse the conviction because the failure to instruct on self-defense is plain error. We remand the case to the trial court for a new trial.

The defendant, Frankie Donald Releford, appeals his effective eight-year sentence of incarceration. The Sullivan County Criminal Court sentenced him to confinement following his guilty pleas to possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine for resale, a Class B felony; possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, a Class E felony; possession of dihydrocodeinone, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and theft of property valued under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant contests the manner of service of his sentences, contending that the trial court erroneously denied him probation or an alternative sentence. We affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court.

The defendant, Byron Looper, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He timely appealed, presenting as issues: (1) the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of witnesses who would have testified as to his location following the homicide, violating his right to due process; (2) the trial court erred in keeping under seal the psychological records of one of the State's witnesses; and (3) the evidence did not support application of the aggravating factor that the homicide was committed because the victim was a state official. Following our review, we affirm the conviction and the imposition of life without the possibility of parole.

After the defendant, Jeremy Rodriques McPhearson, pled guilty to several unrelated offenses, the trial court ordered an effective sentence of eleven years to be served on supervised probation. When the defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and trespass, the state filed a probation violation warrant. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence in confinement. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant was indicted for aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and  theft of property valued over $500. The Defendant pled guilty to facilitation of aggravated rape and to aggravated robbery.  Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven years for facilitation of aggravated rape and to eleven years for aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court ordered that the two sentences run concurrently. However, the trial court ordered that the sentences run consecutively to prior sentences in Humphreys and Dickson Counties. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell; reckless driving; two counts of driving with a suspended, cancelled, or revoked license; possession of cocaine; aggravated assault; and felony evading arrest. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years and ordered him to serve his sentence on probation. The Defendant's probation officer subsequently filed a probation violation report, and following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly relied on rebuttal testimony as substantive evidence at the hearing and thus that the court improperly revoked his probation. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm the trial court's decision to revoke probation in this case.

The defendant, Chad Crabtree, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, Class A felonies. The trial court imposed concurrent twenty-five-year sentences. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by denying his access to certain records regarding the victim and the lead investigator; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support one of his convictions; (3) that the trial court was not impartial; (4) that a witness for the state improperly bolstered the credibility of the victim; and (5) that the sentence was excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Appellant, Sammy D. Childers, appeals his jury convictions for two counts of aggravated assault. Following these convictions, the Circuit Court of Hardin County sentenced Childers to concurrent sentences of five years, with ninety days to be served in confinement, followed by four years and nine months of supervised probation. On appeal, Childers raises one issue for our review; whether he is entitled to a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct. After reviewing the record before us, we find this issue to be without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles E. Delapp, Jr., a.k.a. Charles E. Jackson, Jr., appeals as of right his conviction by a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury for reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and the resulting five-year, six-month sentence. He contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction.

The petitioner, Buford Barrett, appeals the McNairy County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child and resulting twenty-year sentence. He claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney (1) refused to let him testify at trial; (2) failed to subpoena his cousin, who could have testified that the petitioner was not present when the alleged crime occurred; (3) failed to request a DNA test for the victim; and (4) failed to investigate the facts surrounding a statement that his wife gave to the police in which she admitted that she had sexually abused the victim. In addition, the petitioner contends that the cumulative effect of his attorney's deficiencies prevented him from receiving a fair trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

Defendant, Anthony "Tony" Sandy, was indicted by the Lawrence County Grand Jury for first degree murder. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced Defendant, as a Range I standard offender, to serve four years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fine of $10,000, which was assessed by the jury. In this appeal as of right, Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Reginol L. Waters, of two counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to twenty-three years for the first count of aggravated rape, twenty-five years for the second count of aggravated rape, ten years for aggravated robbery, and as a Range II offender to ten years for aggravated burglary. The trial court further ordered the two sentences for aggravated rape and the sentence for aggravated burglary be served consecutively and the sentence for aggravated robbery be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of fifty-eight years. In this appeal of right, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress testimony regarding the "showup" identification of the defendant; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the defendant's statements to the police; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the tape recording of the victim's telephone call to the police; (4) whether the state failed to establish a proper chain of custody for evidence found during a search of the defendant's vehicle; (5) whether the two convictions for aggravated rape should be merged; (6) whether the conviction for aggravated burglary violates due process because it was incidental to the offenses of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery; and (7) whether the sentences are excessive. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant pled guilty to violating a habitual traffic offender order and to a second offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Pursuant to his plea agreement the defendant received a sentence of three years as a multiple offender for violating the habitual traffic offender order and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second offense of driving under the influence. The trial court ordered these sentences to run concurrently. At the conclusion of a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for probation or any other form of alternative sentencing. Through the instant appeal the defendant challenges this denial. After reviewing the facts and relevant caselaw, we find the denial appropriate concerning the violation of the habitual traffic offender judgment and, therefore, affirm the trial court's determination in this regard. We also affirm the denial of alternative sentencing with respect to the defendant's second offense of driving under the influence. However, because of a conflict between the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the judgment, we remand this case for correction of the judgment.

The defendant, Marcus Webb, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's jury instruction defining the mens rea of "knowing." We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Kenneth King, was convicted of burglary of a building and was sentenced to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a career offender. Defendant now appeals his conviction alleging that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mental evaluation prior to trial to determine Defendant's competency to stand trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant was indicted for driving on a revoked license, driving on a revoked license second offense, evading arrest, and reckless driving. After the State presented its proof at trial, the trial court entered judgments of acquittal for the charges of evading arrest and reckless driving. At the conclusion of the trial, a Marion County jury convicted the Defendant of driving on a revoked license and assessed a fine of $500. The Defendant waived a jury as to the second offense driving on a revoked license, and the trial court found him guilty. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for second offense driving on a revoked license and ordered that the sentence be served on probation except for thirty days to be served in the county jail. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a Tennessee Department of Safety driving record as proof of the Defendant's prior conviction for driving on a revoked license. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Clazelle Jennings,1 of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years for aggravated robbery and four years for each of the aggravated assaults. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) whether the convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault upon the same victim violate double jeopardy; and (4) whether the sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse and dismiss one of the aggravated assault convictions due to a double jeopardy violation. We remand for a clerical correction of the remaining aggravated assault judgment. We affirm in all other respects.