APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Archie Junior Weatherford, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court's revocation of his probationary sentence. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

As acknowledged by the majority in its carefully considered opinion, trial judges are vested with broad discretionary powers in the conduct of a trial. Courts must monitor all attorney conduct and may direct a remedy if the performance impedes the orderly administration of justice. United States v. Dinitz, 538 F. 2d 1214, 1219 (5th Cir. 1976). That authority necessarily includes the supervision of appointed counsel for indigent defendants. Moncier v. Ferrell, 990 S.W.2d 710
(Tenn. 1998). An extraordinary appeal to this court on any issue relative to the supervision of the trial which requires immediate appellate review may be granted only in limited circumstances: (1) when the trial court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require intervention; or (2) if necessary for a complete determination of the case. Tenn. R. App. P. 10.

The defendant, Thomas Dee Huskey, brings this extraordinary appeal in which he challenges the order of the Knox County Criminal Court removing his lead counsel of record for his retrial on four counts of first degree murder. The defendant asserts that the trial court’s action is an infringement on his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We conclude that the trial court’s order violated the defendant’s right to counsel and exceeded its discretion. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings.

The defendant, Anthony L. Rogers, was indicted for attempted second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. He pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As his sole issue on appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering his sentence to be served consecutively to a federal sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted in January 2001 of aggravated assault and sentenced to four years in community corrections. Subsequently, while confined in the Grundy County Jail, he was charged with assaulting another inmate, which generated a probation revocation warrant. Following a hearing, the court revoked the community corrections sentence and ordered that he serve the sentence imposed for his aggravated assault conviction. He appealed the revocation, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to justify it and that his due process rights were violated because the trial court did not provide in its revocation order a written statement as to the evidence relied upon. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to concurrent punishment of life imprisonment and twenty-three years, respectively. In his appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in not remanding the matter for another preliminary hearing after it was discovered that the first hearing had not been recorded; in limiting his cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses as to pending matters; and in admitting an autopsy photograph of the victim's head, with the scalp pulled back, to show the gravity of his wound. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and theft over $1000, receiving a life sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive two-year sentence for the theft conviction. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, he filed a timely notice of appeal to this court. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to his murder conviction, he argues that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to misstate law during voir dire; in not allowing defense counsel to question potential jurors about their personal experiences with crime; in allowing hearsay evidence to be presented at trial; in allowing the State to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes; and in allowing the prosecutor to make improper statements during closing argument. Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Lue J. Holcomb, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed a sentence of three and one-half years and ordered that six months of the sentence be served in confinement with the balance on probation. The appellant timely appealed, arguing that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. After a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Tony Walker, appeals the verdict of a Fayette County jury finding him guilty of attempted aggravated robbery. On appeal, Walker raises the single issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. After a review of the record, we affirm.

The defendant, Gregory Scott Allison, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court's revoking his probation that was ordered for his sentences for burglary and theft. The defendant contends that although the trial court may have been justified in finding that he violated the terms of his probation, it erred in sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Mario Lambert, appealed as of right from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. This Court held that the trial court was without authority to sentence the Defendant as a Range I standard offender with a thirty percent release eligibility for the offense of second degree murder. We therefore concluded that, based on the record before us, the sentence imposed appeared to be an illegal sentence. We therefore reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. See Mario Lambert v. Jack Morgan, Warden, No. M1999-02321-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 599 (Nashville, Aug. 7, 2001). On January 23, 2002, our supreme court remanded this case to us, directing us to reconsider our opinion in light of State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. 1978), and further directed us, on remand, to "clarify the action to be taken by the Criminal Court pursuant to the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals when the case is remanded to the trial court." We again reverse the judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

A Hamilton County jury found the Defendant guilty of third offense driving under the influence and imposed a fine of $10,000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days' incarceration, ordered him to attend an alcohol rehabilitation program, and revoked his license for a period of five years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contests the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his restricted driver's license. Although we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the Defendant's conviction, we conclude that evidence concerning the Defendant's restricted driver's license was improperly admitted at trial. We therefore reverse the Defendant's conviction and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial.

The Appellant, Percy M. Cummings, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Cummings contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Terrance Perkins, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. In 1998, Perkins pled guilty to two counts of attempted first degree urder, five counts of aggravated assault, one count of felon in possession of a handgun, and one count of felony escape. Perkins, a Range I Standard Offender, received an effective thirty-one year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Perkins, challenges the validity of his guilty plea upon grounds of: (1) voluntariness and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition is affirmed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to nine counts of aggravated robbery and five counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, claiming that his plea was constitutionally defective because he was inadequately represented at the time of the plea and because the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered. The post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Walter Byers, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court's revocation of his community corrections sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to delivery of one-half gram or more of cocaine. The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections sentence and sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to vehicular homicide by reckless driving. Pursuant to her plea agreement, the Defendant received a four-year sentence, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve her entire four-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that she should have received some form of alternative sentencing. We conclude that the record supports the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of placement in the Community Corrections Program. Denial of placement in Community Corrections Program for untruthfulness and failure to report to begin sentence of incarceration was not abuse of discretion. We affirm.

The defendant, Tommy G. Benham, was convicted of two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to eleven years on each count, to be served concurrently. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the state failed to provide notice that it would seek enhanced punishment, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(a). The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Because I believe the majority opinion essentially reduces the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202 (a) to a superfluity, I must respectfully dissent.

The appellant was sentenced on November 24, 1997 for two convictions, theft of property valued in excess of $10,000 and forgery. Two concurrent three year sentences were imposed with incarceration for one year followed by two years of community corrections. Restitution was not ordered until the appellant's sentenced had expired, and she brings this appeal maintaining that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution following the expiration of her sentence. The State concedes that the restitution order in this case was entered following the expiration of the appellant's sentence and is therefore in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotation section 40-35-304(g)(2). We agree and reverse the order of restitution entered in this case.

The defendant was convicted in 1993 of three counts of aggravated burglary, and the trial court imposed three concurrent three-year sentences. In 1995, the defendant was convicted of one count of burglary and five counts of aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed a four-year sentence for the burglary count and six-year concurrent sentences for each of the aggravated burglary counts. The defendant's latter sentences were to be served consecutively to his previous three-year sentence, with probation granted as to all sentences. Subsequently, a petition to revoke the defendant's probation was filed, alleging that the defendant had failed to report to his probation officer and failed to pay restitution as ordered. Following a hearing, the court revoked the probation, and the defendant timely appealed. On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to revoke his probation, that his due process rights were violated, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his probation revocation hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected order revoking probation only as to Docket No. 6112.