APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Henderson County Circuit Court jury found the defendant, Olivia Washburn, guilty of the sale and delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, Class B felonies, and assessed two separate $25,000 fines. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender, imposed an eight-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and merged the fines so that the defendant was ordered to pay a total of $25,000. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding both that her statement to law enforcement officers was voluntary and that the evidence against her was sufficient, as well as in allowing into evidence a videotape not produced to the defense. These assignments are without merit. However, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the defendant's statement without considering whether the probative value of the numerous references to other drug offenses outweighed their prejudicial effect. The judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the matter is remanded for a new trial.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to timely discover the existence of another individual who was questioned regarding the aggravated assault and for failing to interview or cross-examine the victim of the assault. After review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

The appellant, John Wesley Johnson, was indicted by the Gibson County Grand Jury for one count of desecration of a venerated object, to wit: a place of burial, a class A misdemeanor. He was convicted by a jury, sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, placed on probation, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,574. The appellant, proceeding pro se, filed an untimely notice of appeal. This court, upon motion of the appellant, waived timely filing
of the appeal; accordingly, the appeal is properly before this court. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues: (1) “w[h]ether the trial court reviewed the record”; (2) “w[h]ether the (State) conspira[cy] used their position to withhold facts in order to receive a conviction”; (3) “w[h]ether the public officers used the court to reach their gold”; and  (4) “w[h]ether the trial court erred in its review of the records and facts of law as to this case.” Upon review of the record and the parties’
briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court imposed an agreed sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that she did not enter a voluntary and knowing guilty plea and alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with her plea. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range III, persistent offender to sixty years, to be served at 100%, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in using his prior Illinois convictions to classify him as a persistent offender; and (3) whether the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors. We conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the defendant's conviction, and that his prior convictions in Illinois qualified him as a persistent offender. We further conclude that, although the trial court erred in applying three enhancement factors, the remaining enhancement factors justify the sixty-year sentence imposed in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Originally charged in an indictment with the offense of attempted first degree murder, the Defendant, Genee Hardin Snow, Sr., entered into a negotiated plea agreement wherein he pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder, with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence following a sentencing hearing. Additional charges of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and possession of a weapon in a public place were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve nine (9) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Arguing that he should have received the minimum sentence of eight (8) years, and that he should have been ordered to serve the sentence on probation or some other form of alternative sentence, Defendant has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jeffrey Douglas Stratton, pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft involving checks that he had forged. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, the defendant was sentenced to four years on each count, and two of the sentences were to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of eight years. The trial court was to determine the manner of service of the sentences. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed fully incarcerative sentences to be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals this sentencing determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, Class B felonies, and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel as its main issue. Following a hearing, the court denied relief, and the petitioner timely appealed. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the record shows that trial counsel was ineffective and that the post-conviction court showed bias in its ruling and incorrectly limited his proof at the hearing. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Thomas Gatewood, was indicted for first degree murder but convicted of second degree murder, for which he was sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-three years imprisonment. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in not granting a continuance because of a missing witness, in not instructing as to the lesser-included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide and that his sentence was excessive. Although issues one and three are without merit, we agree that the jury should have been instructed as to the lesser offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

The Appellant, Frederick Beauregard, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In May of 1997, Beauregard was convicted of the rape and incest of his thirteen-year-old daughter. He received an effective sentence of nine years for the convictions. Beauregard's convictions and sentences were later affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Beauregard, 32 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2000). On February 13, 2001, Beauregard timely filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief which was amended following appointment of counsel. Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court denied Beauregard's petition.

From this denial, Beauregard now appeals asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the following respects: (1) trial counsel was inadequately prepared for trial; (2) trial counsel failed to properly investigate, interview or call material witnesses at trial; (3) trial counsel failed to discuss trial strategy or the theory of the case with Beauregard; (4) trial counsel failed to review the jury list with Beauregard; (5) trial counsel failed to develop testimony with regard to the chain of custody of the rape kit and its reliability; and (6) trial counsel failed to provide expert proof to rebut the State's DNA expert. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Holly Fant, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Gibson County Circuit Court. Fant pled guilty, under an "open" plea agreement, to aggravated assault and, following a hearing, was sentenced to a term of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Fant now appeals, asserting that the trial court failed to comply with the relevant sentencing principles and, therefore, erred in not granting her a non-incarcerative sentence. Because we find that the trial court failed to place on the record discernable enhancing or mitigating factors as is statutorily required, and failed to include findings with regard to the denial of an alternative sentence, the judgment is reversed and this case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

A Humphreys County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant of rape, and the trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to ten years, with 100% of his sentence to be served. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to convict him of rape, in admitting a statement he made to the police, in admitting evidence of the victim's mental capacity, in denying his Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412 motion, and in failing to instruct the jury as to assault. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a Lincoln County Circuit Court Jury of robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years, three months in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the State's peremptory challenge of the only African-American member of the venire was exercised on race-neutral grounds. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jimmy L. Slatton, pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery and agreed to a six-year sentence. The plea agreement provided that the trial court would determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing and imposed incarceration in the Department of Correction. From this determination, the defendant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a burglary conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to provide information that was essential for him to make informed decisions in his case and failed to present an adequate defense at trial, and that the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance was to prejudice the outcome of his case. We affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a burglary conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to provide information that was essential for him to make informed decisions in his case and failed to present an adequate defense at trial, and that the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance was to prejudice the outcome of his case. We affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his sentence was illegal because: (1) he was improperly sentenced as a persistent offender; (2) his sentence was improperly enhanced because he did not receive the State's notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment; (3) the record of his prior criminal convictions relied upon to sentence him was inaccurate; and (4) his counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Because the Petitioner has failed to allege grounds that would warrant habeas corpus relief, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Sanford & Sons Bail Bonds, Inc., appeals the judgment of the Hamblen County Criminal Court forfeiting $5,000 bail in the case of criminal defendant Florentino DeJesus Hernandez. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Sullivan County jury convicted the defendant of theft over $1,000 for stealing a car. On appeal, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.