APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I am unable to join with my colleagues in concluding that “restoration of citizenship rights” to a felon convicted of a crime of violence restores to the felon his right to possess a handgun. My reasons are twofold.

The defendant, William P. Brooks, was convicted of driving on a revoked license, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days, requiring 90 days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence and by imposing an excessive sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I concur in the results reached by the majority on all of the issues and in the rationales employed to reach the results in all but one issue, that being the ineffectiveness of counsel regarding the failure to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of facilitation. I respectfully would have taken a different approach in resolving this issue.

The defendant was convicted by a Lewis County jury of criminal responsibility for facilitation of a felony and possession of drug paraphernalia. The underlying felony conviction was for possession of cocaine in an amount of .5 gram or more with intent to sell or deliver. The defendant's brother pled guilty to this felony, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years in continuous confinement on the facilitation conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days in the workhouse on the drug paraphernalia conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of nine years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that his sentence on the facilitation conviction was inappropriate both as to length and manner of service. Having reviewed the limited record, we conclude that the sentence is appropriate and therefore affirm the decision of the trial court.

ThePetitioners filed pro-se petitions for post-conviction relief on September 25, 1997, in accordance with the Post Conviction Relief Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-101. Amended petitions were subsequently filed by court appointed counsel on November 14, 1997. The Petitioners’ petitions were later dismissed and this appeal followed. In this appeal, the Petitioners set forth several grounds upon which they claim that post-conviction relief should have been granted. Specifically, the Petitioners allege ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that counsel: failed to file a motion for judgment of acquittal; failed to appeal the judgment of conviction for second degree murder; failed to dismiss two jurors who were alleged to be biased against the Petitioners, which resulted in a denial of their right to a fair and impartial jury; failed to interview and cross-examine a witness of the State’s; and failed to file a motion to suppress photographs that were entered into evidence.  Petitioner Donnie Wheeler also contends that post-conviction relief should have been granted because counsel failed to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of criminal responsibility for the facilitation of a felony, and because the trial court failed to charge the jury with the same lesser-included offense. After careful examination of the issues set forth herein, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief to the Petitioners.

The petitioner, James Perry Hyde, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

The Petitioner, George Todd, appeals from the Lake County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1985, the Petitioner entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pled guilty to second degree murder. As part of the plea agreement the Petitioner received a forty-five year sentence as a Range II offender. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied and the Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition to this Court. On December 21, 1989, this Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief. On August 24, 2000, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lake County Circuit Court, alleging that the passage of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 served to void his sentence and all other sentences in the State of Tennessee, and was the equivalent of a pardon. The Lake County Circuit Court denied the Petitioner's petition.

The petitioner challenges the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment for second degree murder because that offense is not a lesser included offense of felony murder with which he was indicted. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

The Defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI and sentenced to thirty days, suspended upon the service of five days, and eleven-months, twenty-nine days probation. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion to pull him over or probable cause to arrest him; that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; that the State failed to prove venue; and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the defendant's conviction and modify his sentence.

The defendant appeals from his convictions for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated robbery. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously ordered service of his original sentences upon the revocation of his probation. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence, contesting the sufficiency of the indictment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Billy J. Grooms, appeals the trial court's denial of a pro se petition to correct an illegal judgment/sentence. The trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed.

The defendant appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction and sentence for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 37 years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient; that double jeopardy barred his retrial following the grant of a mistrial; that Jencks Act material, police reports, and arrest histories of state witnesses were improperly withheld; that he was not allowed to impeach a key witness in violation of his confrontation rights; that the trial court erred in ruling that his prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he testified; that the jury was improperly instructed; and that his sentence is excessive. We are unpersuaded that reversible error occurred and therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

Defendant, Richard Crawford, was convicted at a bench trial of theft of a motor vehicle valued over $10,000. On appeal, the defendant raises the following two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for theft; and (2) whether the value of the vehicle was properly established. The judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction; (3) the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors requires a new trial; and (4) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Our law provides: “A person charged with an offense has no burden to prove his innocence.”  TENN.CODE ANN.§39-11-201(c). Because I am unable to disregard this most basic principle of law, I am also unable to affirm the judgment of conviction in this case.

The petitioner, Earnest L. White, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his habeas corpus/post-conviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, White asserts therein that ten of his 1984 convictions should be set aside because of constitutional infirmities in the process surrounding the entry of his guilty pleas for these offenses. As the issues raised provide no basis for habeas corpus relief but rather set out traditional post-conviction concerns, the trial court considered this pro se petition as one for post-conviction relief. However, the trial court thereafter found that the petition had been filed past the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, dismissed the petition. After a review of the record before this Court, we find that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years and two years, respectively, as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the attempted first degree murder presentment was defective; (2) the proof was insufficient to sustain his attempted first degree murder conviction; (3) the trial judge erroneously failed to satisfy his "thirteenth juror" role; and (4) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the trial court.

The defendant, after having his authority to write bonds in the 30th Judicial District revoked, appeals the trial court's decision and asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the trial court's action was excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

This is an appeal of a denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner and two codefendants were each convicted of murder in the perpetration of robbery and of especially aggravated robbery for the robbery and killing of a man who had given them a ride in his car. The petitioner appealed her convictions to the post-conviction court, arguing, inter alia, that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by his failure to petition for a severance of trial from her codefendants. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding the petitioner's claims to be without merit. Based upon a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.

The Defendant, Joseph Vella, appeals as of right from his criminal trespass conviction. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced by the jury to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. He also received a sentence of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, to be served consecutively to his life sentence. The events of this case arose out of a confrontation between rival gangs living in the Hurt Village Apartments in Memphis. The defendant, a high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples, was prosecuted for the crimes on a theory of criminal responsibility. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the extensive record in this case, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant, acting with the intent to promote the commission of the charged offenses, directed and aided other members of the Gangster Disciples in the commission of the offenses. His convictions for first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping are, therefore, affirmed.

The defendant, Srirasack Srisavath, was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The trial court imposed a sentence of one and one-half years and assessed a fine of $2,000.00. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the propriety for the investigatory stop which led to the discovery of the marijuana. Because the stop was not adequately supported by articulable facts, the trial court erred by overruling the motion to suppress evidence. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause dismissed.