APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pled guilty to theft under $500 and to violating an habitual traffic offender order. She entered Alford pleas to possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Her total effective sentence was two years as a Range I standard offender plus eleven months and twenty-nine days on supervised probation. The manner of service of the two-year sentence was to be determined by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve the entire two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to impose an alternative sentence. Concluding that the record supports the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, James Charles Cavaye, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, and to a consecutive sentence of twenty-four years for the especially aggravated robbery. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that (1) the trial court failed to fulfill its role as the thirteenth juror; (2) the accomplice's testimony was insufficiently corroborated; (3) the trial court erred in applying enhancement factors in setting Defendant's sentence for especially aggravated robbery; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering Defendant's sentences to run consecutively. Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated robbery and attempted robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective nine-year term. The Defendant appealed, and our Court affirmed the case in part, but remanded the case in part for the trial court to determine whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated. On remand, the trial court found that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial had not been violated. The Defendant now appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss for a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is yet another case in which the parties have been ensnared in the procedural pitfalls of a certified question of law. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of over seventy pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver with an agreed sentence of eight years. He attempted to reserve a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(iv), "with the consent of the court," relating to the search and seizure of the contraband. Because the defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty and neither the judgment nor the order of the court reflects the state's consent to the certified question, we must dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, indicted on counts of especially aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, theft over $1,000.00, and evading arrest, entered pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery and theft over $1,000.00. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years. There was no appeal. Later, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief and the trial court granted a delayed appeal. The issues presented for our review are as follows: (1) whether the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a direct appeal or by failing to timely file a motion to reduce the sentence; (3) whether the trial court properly modified an illegal sentence; and (4) whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant, Darren A. Dewalt, appeals as of right from the trial court's order revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentence to be served in the Shelby County Correction Center. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation based upon an unidentified and unsubstantiated laboratory report indicating that Defendant had used drugs in violation of his probation. Based upon a review of the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant pled guilty to attempted second degree murder, and the trial court imposed a ten-year sentence. He appeals his sentence, arguing he should have received the minimum sentence of eight years with alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Giles County jury convicted the defendant, Timothy Maurice Reynolds, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty years as a Range II multiple offender. On direct appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated robbery; (2) whether the trial court erred in prohibiting defense counsel, during cross-examination and closing arguments, from referring to the United States Attorney General's comments on eyewitness identification; and (3) whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant to be a Range II multiple offender. We affirm the conviction; however, because essential exhibits relating to sentencing are missing from the record without fault of the parties, we remand for resentencing.

The defendant, Colin Reed Wells, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of carjacking (Class B felony), robbery (Class C felony), aggravated assault (Class C felony), resisting arrest (Class B misdemeanor), violation of driver's license law (Class B misdemeanor), evading arrest (Class A misdemeanor), evading arrest (Class D felony), and assault (Class A misdemeanor). Following his convictions, the trial court merged some convictions and imposed an effective sentence of 32 years as a multiple offender in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he claims his carjacking conviction is infirm because the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Appellant, Paul Hayes, appeals his convictions by a Shelby County jury for aggravated burglary and two counts of aggravated robbery. In this appeal as of right, Hayes raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by prohibiting defense counsel from addressing the jury during entry of the plea; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying Hayes' motion for a mistrial following a detective's testimony that Hayes was a suspect in uncharged similar crimes; (3) whether the trial court committed plain error by limiting the scope of cross-examination of a co-defendant testifying for the State; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the convictions; and (5) whether the cumulative effect of all errors amounted to a denial of due process of law. After a review of the record, we hold that Hayes' issues are without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Javonni Jones, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as being barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, James E. Jackson, appeals the trial court's denial of his petitions for writ of error coram nobis and post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder. In regard to the petition for writ of error coram nobis, the petitioner claims that newly discovered evidence entitles him to a new trial. In regard to the petition for post-conviction relief, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to call certain witnesses to testify and did not investigate and present a diminished capacity defense. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petitions.

Randolph Scott Jennings appeals from his Hamilton County conviction of aggravated robbery. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced by the trial court to a seventeen-year, Range II term in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he alleges error in the trial court's (1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a "showup" identification and admission of the subsequent in-court identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime, (2) denial of motions to compel production of clothing the defendant wore at the time of his arrest, or alternatively, to dismiss the charged based upon the state's inability to produce the clothing, and (3) application of enhancement factors, imposition of a Range II sentence, and order of consecutive sentencing. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Mark E. Conner, was convicted by a jury of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class D felony. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues four issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction, (2) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of witnesses Sherri Conner, the Defendant's wife and former co-defendant, and Gloria Whitehead, the Defendant's mother-in-law, (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to require the State to provide the Defendant with any statement, arrest history, and prior convictions of the State's witnesses, and (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to exclude the State's photographs and the Defendant's request to introduce at trial the remaining photographs that were provided to the Defendant during discovery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant pled guilty to delivery of cocaine under .5 grams. The trial court imposed a Range II eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals her sentence, arguing it was excessive and she should have received alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Ann Marie Thornton Kelly, was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury on twenty counts relating to incidents involving the sexual abuse of her children. She was ultimately convicted of two counts of rape of a child, three counts of criminal responsibility for rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, one count of criminal responsibility for aggravated sexual battery, and one count of incest. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of sixty-two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the State concedes that the appellant was not competent to stand trial. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ricky Lee Netherton, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Cumberland County of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the petitioner as a violent offender to twenty-four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction to be served at one hundred percent (100%). Following an unsuccessful appeal of his conviction, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner now brings this appeal challenging the post-conviction court's denial of his petition. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing: (1) his "best interest" plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective in representing him at sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioners, brothers, were tried and convicted, jointly, of first degree murder, aggravated arson, and conspiracy to commit arson against personal property. They filed petitions for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. After careful review, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Anthony Hodges, was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life without parole and twenty-five years, respectively, to be served in the Department of Correction. The Defendant's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Hodges, 7 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). The Defendant subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied. The Defendant now appeals, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his due process rights were violated by the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on second degree murder; by the State's employment of inconsistent theories of guilt at his and his co-defendant's separate trials; and by the denial of his right to testify. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jerome F. Sawyers, pled guilty on July 16, 2001, to possession of cocaine less than .5 grams for resale and felony possession of a firearm and was sentenced, respectively, to six years and two years as a Range I, standard offender, with both sentences to be served concurrently. A violation of probation warrant was issued on August 8, 2001, alleging that he had violated probation by being in possession of a weapon and failing to report to his probation officer as ordered. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation; and he timely appealed, arguing that the proof was insufficient that he had violated the terms of his probation. We conclude that the evidence supports the revocation of probation.

The defendant was charged with twenty-four separate counts including one count of driving under the influence, nine counts of reckless endangerment involving a deadly weapon, one count of reckless driving, eight counts of aggravated assault, two counts of failure to give notice of an accident, two counts of evading arrest creating a risk of death, and one count of false imprisonment. Eight of the reckless endangerment and reckless driving counts merged with other charges. The defendant entered guilty pleas to the other sixteen counts. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years and six months. The defendant appealed the sentence as excessive, arguing that the trial court erred in calculating his total sentence. After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction but remand for entry of corrected judgments.

Defendant, Andre Kimbrough, appeals his conviction in the Davidson County Criminal Court for second degree murder. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by: 1) failing to act as a thirteenth juror; 2) permitting the State to impeach the Defendant using prior bad acts without giving proper notice to the Defendant; and 3) not applying certain mitigating factors in sentencing Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Ruben Joseph Knight, Jr., appeals the Blount County Circuit Court's revocation of his community corrections sentence. Following our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm.