APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, James Kevin Underwood, was convicted of evading arrest, a Class E felony; driving on a revoked license, fourth offense; and possession of drug paraphernalia, the sentences to be served concurrently. Germane to this appeal, the defendant was sentenced for the evading arrest as a Range I offender either to two years in "house arrest" under a community corrections alternative program of which six months are to be served in jail, "day for day," or to six months in jail, day for day, followed by two years in a community corrections alternative program. Either way, the defendant contends (1) that the sentence exceeded the one-year sentence in his plea agreement and (2) that, in any event, the trial court cannot order him to serve six months day for day. We affirm the judgments for the two misdemeanor offenses, but we remand the evading arrest case for resentencing.

The petitioner, Kenneth Stomm, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The single issue presented for review is whether the petition was properly dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is affirmed.

The Defendant pled nolo contendere to one count of felony child neglect, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, one count of possession of marijuana, and two counts of public intoxication. At issue in this appeal is the sentence for felony child neglect, a Class D felony for which the Defendant received a two-year Community Corrections sentence. Subsequently, based upon a warrant alleging that the Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his Community Corrections sentence, the trial court revoked the Defendant's Community Corrections sentence and increased his original sentence from two years to four years, to be served with the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly enhanced his two-year sentence for felony child neglect to four years and that the court erred by failing to impose some form of alternative sentencing. We conclude that the trial court properly increased the length of the Defendant's sentence from two to four years and that the Defendant's prison sentence was properly imposed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Greene County jury convicted the Defendant of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the sentence imposed by the trial court. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence is proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Loudon County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The Defendant's first jury trial resulted in a mistrial. Following a second trial, a Loudon County jury convicted the Defendant of the offense charged. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days incarceration, with all but four days suspended, and fined him $400. The Defendant now appeals his conviction, arguing (1) that insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction; and (2) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction, and we conclude that the Defendant received adequate representation at trial. We thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Mary Christine Whiteside Cook, seeks to appeal as of right from the trial court's denying her petition to enforce a plea bargain agreement and her request for a writ of habeas corpus. She asserts that pursuant to the agreement, she is entitled to immediate release from her imprisonment, which results from her 1986 conviction upon her plea of guilty to first degree murder. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal because of the lack of jurisdiction.

The Appellant, Waylon D. Knott, was indicted by a Stewart County Grand Jury on one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, one count of possession with intent to sell methamphetamine, and one count of felony possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a traffic stop for improper registration, Knott, after first refusing, granted consent to search his vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a quantity of drugs. Knott moved to suppress the evidence upon grounds that consent was not voluntarily given. The trial court granted Knott's motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment, finding that the "search was unconstitutional because the officer had no reasonable, articulable suspicion of further criminal activity to justify the request to search the vehicle and further detain [Knott]." The State appeals from the trial court's ruling asserting that Knott's consent was voluntary and therefore the search was valid. We find that the dispositive issues presented are: (1) whether Knott was unlawfully detained at the time that he consented to the search and, if so; (2) whether Knott's consent to search was voluntarily given. Because no findings were entered relevant to these issues, we are required to remand for findings of fact on these questions. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded.

The Appellant, Donald W. Rhea, Jr. was indicted on one count of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery stemming from a single criminal episode. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rhea pled guilty to the lesser offenses of robbery and attempt to commit robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the Davidson County Criminal Court sentenced Rhea to the maximum sentence of six years for robbery and three years for attempted robbery. The court, finding Rhea's history of criminal activity extensive, further ordered that these sentences be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of nine years in the Department of Correction. Rhea appeals to this court, contending that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. After review of the record, we affirm.

The issues in this interlocutory appeal by the state, as we view them, are straightforward: (1) whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee has the authority by rule to prohibit a full-time municipal judge from representing a defendant or otherwise practicing law after 180 days from assuming judicial office; and (2) if so, whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee intended exactly what the rule says. We conclude that it does and did. We further conclude that a violation of this Supreme Court Rule is prejudicial to the judicial process, and the issue is not waived by the failure of the opposing party to request disqualification at its first opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court which declined to disqualify defendant's attorney, a sitting judge, from further participation in this case.

The appellant, Lisa White, a/k/a Lisa Croft, appeals her conviction for aggravated robbery. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and alleges she was prejudiced by allegedly improper remarks by the prosecutor during opening arguments. After a thorough review of the record, this Court disagrees and affirms the appellant's conviction.

The defendant appeals from the trial court's imposition of the maximum sentences within the range. The State agrees that the trial court erred in applying enhancement factor (7). After review, we conclude that neither enhancement factor (7) nor (15) is applicable under these facts. Therefore, the defendant's sentence is modified to the statutorily required sentences of eight years in the Department of Correction at 100 percent for the aggravated sexual battery offense and to three years on each attempted aggravated sexual battery offense.

The petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that the trial court denied him an opportunity to have a full and fair hearing on the merits of his claim. After review, we agree with the trial court and affirm the dismissal.

The appellant, Ronald W. Byrd, was convicted in the Sullivan County Criminal Court of attempt to commit aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal trespass, and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court should have permitted the jury to consider the issue of whether the appellant's conduct was fairly motivated by his desire to make a citizen's arrest; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction of attempted aggravated kidnapping. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Phillip Michael Cisson, entered pleas of guilt on two counts of burglary and two counts of theft over $1,000. The plea agreement provided for concurrent two-year sentences on each conviction. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erroneously denied probation. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel failed to call certain witnesses and did not call the petitioner to testify on his own behalf at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petitioner any relief.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea of guilty was involuntarily entered. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

After waiving his right to a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. For this offense he received a sentence of two years as a Range I, standard offender. However, the trial court ordered this sentence suspended after the service of thirty days. Through this appeal the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing impeachment evidence to be introduced through Officer Steve Blankenship and that the evidence is insufficient to support his having possessed the marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver it. After reviewing the record, we find that neither of these claims merit reversal and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction, but remand for correction of the judgment to reflect the defendant was convicted at a bench trial.

In this felony drug possession case, the state appeals from the trial court's order suppressing as evidence all items, including marijuana, seized during a search of the defendants' home. It contends that the trial court erred in determining that the affidavit for the search warrant did not establish probable cause to warrant a search. Based upon the record before us, we are constrained to affirm the trial court.

The summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed because the petitioner failed to adequately allege ineffective assistance of counsel based upon conflict of interests and the claim of incompetency to stand trial is waived.

The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition wherein he attacks the validity of a probation revocation proceeding. After a review of the record we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr. appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in his conviction proceedings, which ultimately caused him to plead guilty rather than take his case to trial. Gagne is serving an effective term of two consecutive life sentences consecutively to a prior twelve-year sentence. His petition involves his convictions upon guilty pleas for crimes of larceny, theft, aggravated burglary and two counts of felony murder. Following an evidentiary hearing, the lower court ruled that Gagne failed to establish his ineffective assistance claim. We hold that he has failed to demonstrate the error of that ruling, and we therefore affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.

The appellant, Allan Brooks, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The appellant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to (1) demand a sequestered jury, (2) object to a display used by the prosecution during cross-examination of the appellant, (3) object to the mention of the appellant's first trial, and (4) seek an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling regarding the testimony of Josh Peyton, the victim's six year old son. We find that the appellant received effective assistance of counsel and that his claims to the contrary are without merit. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted in a jury trial of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, and of driving on a revoked license. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the stop of his truck was an unreasonable seizure, (2) that the state failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of his breath test results, (3) that the breath test was invalid because it was given when he had tobacco in his mouth, and (4) that his DUI sentence to confinement to be served at one hundred percent is legally impermissible. We affirm the convictions, but we conclude that the defendant is entitled to good conduct credits. Because of discrepancies between the sentencing transcript and the judgments of conviction, we remand the case for review of the sentences and entry of corrected judgments, if necessary.

The defendant was convicted upon his guilty pleas to three counts of unlawfully photographing individuals in violation of their privacy, a Class A misdemeanor, and received concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentences to be served in confinement in the county jail. The defendant appeals the trial court's denying him probation of any type. We affirm the denial of probation, but we remand the case for entry of corrected judgments.

The defendant, John Waymann Orr, appeals from his probation revocation which resulted primarily from his conviction for public intoxication and alcohol abuse. He contends that with his alcohol abuse and mental health problems, he should be receiving treatment and should not be confined in jail. We affirm the trial court.