APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a legal malpractice action in which Plaintiff, incarcerated at Turney Center Industrial Prison, appeals the dismissal by the trial court of his action against his court-appointed assistant public defender. Holding the defendant immune from suit under Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-14-209, the trial court dismissed the Complaint. We affirm the action of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus.  In that petition the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from his sentence for facilitating aggravated robbery. We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Husband appeals the division of marital property. The trial court found Husband did not bring into the marriage as many assets as Wife did, thus awarding a greater portion of the parties' home to Wife rather than Husband. The trial court further found that Husband had dissipated marital assets when he sold the parties' horse riding rings in violation of the statutory injunction. Husband claims that the division of property was not equal and challenges the finding that he dissipated marital assets while not making the same finding with regard to Wife. We affirm.

The Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiff for damages from destruction of road over easement and reformed deed. On appeal, we affirm.

The petitioner, Christopher Cook, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

In an opinion filed June 24, 2005, this court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief, concluding that the single issue presented in the petition, whether the waiver of the right to counsel was voluntary, had been previously determined by this court on direct appeal. On July 11, 2005, the petitioner, Anthony Forster, filed a petition to rehear pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39. He complains that this court misapprehended a material fact and that this court ruled on an issue upon which the parties had not been heard. He asserts that this court erred by concluding that the issue had been previously determined because the propriety of this court's opinion on direct appeal had not been addressed.  Further, he contends that the parties were not heard on the issue because the state in its brief asserted that the issue had been waived and did not address the merits of the claim.

The Petitioner, Jorge Acosta Rubio, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The petitioner, Christopher Robert Smith, seeks post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After being convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell over 300 grams of cocaine, the petitioner appealed. On direct appeal this Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence. State v. Christopher Robert Smith, No. M2001-02297-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31202132 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 27, 2002), perm. app. denied (Feb. 24, 2003). The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. For the following reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, William P. Livingston, Jr., appeals the dismissal by the Hamblen County Criminal Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. After review of the record, we affirm.

The state appeals the McNairy County Circuit Court’s order suppressing drug-related evidence seized from the home of the defendant, Billy Dewayne Walker, pursuant to a search warrant. The state contends that the trial court erred in finding that the information contained in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search. We agree and reverse the trial court’s ruling.

The Defendant, Clyde T. Smith, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Purchasers of real property filed suit for breach of contract, negligence per se, intentional misrepresentation, breach of warranty of title, and emotional distress against various parties, alleging that purchasers had purchased the subject property in reliance upon misrepresentations by defendants as to the merchantability of title to the property, only to discover later that the property had been illegally subdivided by defendants. Purchasers contended that they suffered catastrophic pecuniary and other loss as result of alleged misrepresentations, due to extremely limited legal uses that could be made of illegally subdivided parcel. At trial, jury found that each of the defendants had committed intentional misrepresentation, and awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $170,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Defendants appeal on numerous grounds. Finding that the trial court erred, we vacate and remand.

The defendant, Christopher Kirkendall, was convicted of facilitation of attempted second degree murder and two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, holding that enhancement factors (3), (10), and (21) were applied in violation of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The state filed an application for permission to appeal to our supreme court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The supreme court granted the state's application and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration as a result of its opinion in State v. Edwin Gomez and Jonathan S. Londono, ___S.W.3d ___, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2005). Based upon the Gomez decision, the judgments of the trial court must be affirmed.

The petitioner, Walter Earl Preston, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that his sentences are illegal, thereby rendering his judgments of conviction void. We affirm the trial court.

The Petitioner, Author Ray Turner, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief contending that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) established a new rule of law that was retrospectively applicable to his case and entitled him to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Appellant, Brian Carl Lev, appeals the denial of judicial diversion following his guilty pleas to two counts of statutory rape. After review, we reverse the sentencing decision of the trial court and remand for deferment of the proceedings as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (2003).

The petitioner challenges the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he contended that his absence from voir dire violated his constitutional rights and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) because he did not personally waive the right to be present. We initially note that, at the time of the petitioner's trial, a personal waiver of the right was not required. We conclude that there is no jurisdictional defect apparent from the record. Therefore, we affirm the denial of habeas relief.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Eddie Hatchett, of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient because the state failed to negate his claim of self-defense. We affirm the trial court.

This is a direct appeal of the sentence imposed for an aggravated sexual battery conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). He now challenges his
sentence, raising three issues: 1) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing who had not been sequestered during prior testimony, 2) the trial court erred in applying one enhancement factor because it was also an element of the offense, and 3) the sentence was improperly enhanced in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Johnson County Circuit Court of multiple offenses, and he received a total effective sentence of twenty-two years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), renders his sentences void. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, which dismissal the petitioner appeals. The State filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Christopher A. Johnson, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Jeffery Yates, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, career offender to thirty years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following challenges to his conviction: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court’s handling of the victim’s statement to the police; (3) the trial court’s admission of testimony regarding the Defendant’s involvement in a prostitution sting; (4) the trial court’s refusal to allow the Defendant to cross-examine his co-defendant about gang affiliation; (5) the trial court’s decision to allow the State to cross-examine the Defendant about prior convictions; and (6) the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft.  Finding no reversible error in the issues raised by the Defendant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Steven Andrew Tidwell, tried for aggravated burglary and theft of property between $500 and $1,000, was convicted of theft. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient, that the trial court erred by ruling that the state could cross-examine him with a prior burglary offense for which he had received judicial diversion, and that the sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is a direct appeal as of right by the State from a denial of its petitions to have Defendants Daniel Cleveland and Matthew Harville declared habitual offenders pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-601 et seq. On appeal, the State argues that the language of section 603(2)(A) of the MVHO statute contains an error, and therefore legislative intent and the “entire scheme” of the statute require this Court to interpret the provision in question by changing its conjunctive construction to disjunctive. We disagree, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Demarcus O'Shea Walker, pled guilty to various offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years, which it ordered the Defendant to serve on probation. While the Defendant was on probation, a probation violation report was filed and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered that the Defendant serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgment.