APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Ruth Stanford, stands convicted of sale of a Schedule III controlled substance and delivery of a Schedule III controlled substance. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (1991) (amended 1996, 1997) (proscriptive statute); § 39-17-410 (1991) (amended 1996) (scheduled drugs). Stanford received her convictions at a jury trial in the Henderson County Circuit Court. She was sentenced to serve concurrent two-year sentences1 for these Class D felonies, with the first 90 days to be served in the county facility and the balance to be served on probation. In this  appeal, she raises three issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the
witness who purchased drugs from Stanford without qualifying
the basis of knowledge and reliability of the witness's
testimony.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance of the
hearing on the motion for new trial and ruling on the merits of
the motion.
3. Whether the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law, we find no
reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of one-half ounce or more of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to a term of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This sentence was suspended and the defendant was to serve four years on supervised probation and a term of ninety days in the county jail. The defendant’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The defendant now appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant’s contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, James Tyrone Harbison, was convicted in 1997 of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of “serious bodily injury” as an aggravating factor of the defendant’s convicted offense; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony that the defendant had been released from prison immediately preceeding the instant offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser offense; (4) whether the defendant’s sentence is excessive; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III persistent offender. We AFFIRM the judgment from the trial court.

The defendant, Johnny Leach, appeals the order of the Criminal Court of Campbell County denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated sexual battery. On July 2, 1998, the defendant entered his plea and received two ten-year sentences to be served concurrently. Because the defendant’s plea became final on the date of entry of the plea pursuant to the plea agreement, we conclude that his motion to withdraw was untimely.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

A jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated child abuse and neglect, and he received an eighteen year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He now appeals, raising the following issues:

I. Whether the convicting evidence is sufficient;
II. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony from a Department of Child Services investigator that the victim cried at the mention of the defendant’s name;
III. Whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statements to the police on the basis his mental incompetence prevented a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights; and
IV. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing educators to testify about the defendant’s mental abilities unless the defendant first testified.

Finding no merit to the defendant’s arguments, we affirm his conviction.

The petitioner, Jacques B. Bennett, appeals the summary dismissal of his “Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Judgment/Plea: and, to Declare Said Judgment/Plea Void” by the Hamilton County Criminal Court on January 9, 1998. Following a thorough review of the record, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance pursuant to Ct. of Crim. App. Rule 20.