APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Johnny Quent Crudup, was indicted on two counts of theft of property of more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and two counts of theft of property of more than $10,000 and less than $60,000, a Class C felony. Defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion which was subsequently denied by the district attorney general. The trial court denied the writ of certiorari and affirmed the district attorney general's decision. Defendant was granted permission to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Defendant contends that the district attorney general abused his discretion in denying Defendant's application, and that the denial was improperly made by an assistant district attorney instead of the district attorney. We affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion.

The Appellant, Chris Edward Porter, appeals the sentencing decision of the Marshall County Circuit Court which resulted in the imposition of an effective ten-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Porter challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ricky Thomas Hughes, II, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly investigate and prepare his case for trial and failed to advise him of the consequences of proceeding to trial. The petitioner also contends that his sentences are invalid under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ----, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Carlos Eddings, was tried and convicted for aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years in prison. The Defendant appealed, and a majority of this Court concluded that his sentence must be modified to eight years pursuant to the United States Supreme Court case Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). State v. Carlos Eddings, No. W2003-02255-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2266794, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 8, 2004). The State filed an application for permission to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to
Rule 11(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On May 23, 2005, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for the purpose of remanding the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005). On remand, we affirm
the Defendant’s ten-year sentence.

The Defendant, Derek Bates, was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, which the trial court subsequently merged into a single conviction. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff/Patient filed a complaint against Defendant/Doctor alleging medical malpractice for failure to obtain her informed consent before operating. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant/Doctor on the basis that Plaintiff/Patient had failed to meet the burden of proof required by T.C.A. §29-26-115 and T.C.A. §29-26-118. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Bobby Nelson, upon his plea of guilty, was convicted of arson, a Class C felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to establish the length and manner of service of the Defendant's sentence. The sentence for arson was to be served concurrently with another sentence the Defendant was already serving for prior convictions. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court found the Defendant was a Range I, standard offender, sentenced him to four and a half years, and ordered the Defendant serve his entire sentence with the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues pertaining to sentencing: (1) the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence, and (2) the trial court erred in denying probation or alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Gregory Eidson, filed a petition for wit of habeas corpus seeking relief from allegedly void judgments, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition. Finding that there exists reversible error in the judgment of the habeas corpus court, we reverse its dismissal of the Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief, and we remand the case for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

The Defendant, Paul Friedman, pled guilty to one count of promoting prostitution. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-512 (2003), et seq., under which he was indicted, was unconstitutional. We conclude that this statute is constitutional, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

The appellant, William Harlon Adams, appeals his convictions for vandalism of less than five hundred dollars ($500) and criminal attempt to commit resisting arrest. The following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; (2) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the offense of attempt to resist arrest; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for vandalism; and (5) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the appellant. After a thorough review, we determine that attempt to resist arrest is not a crime, thus, we reverse the appellant's conviction and remand the case for any further proceedings which may be necessary. We affirm the remainder of the judgment of the trial court, including the conviction for vandalism.

The petitioner, Dennis Harmon, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioners, Mother and her husband, brought a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment. The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence did not support a finding a willful abandonment and dismissed the petition. We affirm.

I respectfully disagree with the result reached in the majority opinion. I believe that the petitioner’s decision to plead guilty to the twelve-year sentence instead of the 7.2-year sentence resulted from inadequate advice.

The appellant, Corey Huddleston, was convicted of multiple counts of theft of property valued under $500, vandalism of property valued under $500, and criminal trespass. He received sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of his theft and vandalism convictions and thirty days for each of his criminal trespass convictions. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Larry C. Strong, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing to present proof of his timely filing of the petition. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of the petition.

Grantors erected a house and driveway over an easement which was then sold to grantees. Grantees brought an action for damages to encumbered property and the Trial Court awarded grantees damages. We affirm.

After a bench trial, the Williamson County Criminal Court convicted the petitioner, Johnnie M. Talley, III, of five counts of making a false report and sentenced him to an effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction (DOC). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging (1) that his counsel was ineffective for failing to have him evaluated by a psychologist and (2) that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights to a jury trial or to testify. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly due to defendant's negligence, the Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs had executed a Waiver and Release of Liability which was required by defendant prior to plaintiffs' participation in white water rafting. Plaintiffs have appealed, insisting the Release is void as against the public policy of this State. We affirm.

The defendant, Shawnta Lamont Marsh, pled guilty to six counts of sale or delivery of cocaine over .5 grams. The trial court merged all but three of the convictions and ordered the defendant to serve consecutive sentences of eight years and one month for each offense. The effective sentence is twenty-four years and three months. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A Bedford County jury convicted the defendant, John Thomas Bingham, of robbery, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years and six months in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following the decedent’s death, his estate was not admitted to probate until well over one year from the date of his death. A creditor filed a claim against the estate over twenty-one months after the decedent’s date of death. The executors filed an exception to the creditor’s claim arguing that it was barred since it was not filed within one year of the decedent’s date of death. The probate court, relying on a previous decision rendered by this Court, held that the creditor’s claim was not barred by the applicable statutes. After reviewing the applicable statutory language and the decisions rendered by this Court interpreting those statutes, we reverse.

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that his petition was untimely filed without appointing counsel and conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due process considerations tolled the statute of limitations. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Donald Solomon, pled guilty to theft of property valued at $1,000, but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court classified the defendant as a Range I, standard offender and sentenced him to four years in the Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the sentence consecutive to a sentence in another case for which the defendant was on probation at the time. In this direct appeal, the defendant presents the single issue of whether the trial court erred in sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Patrick Lamont Barker, pled guilty to two counts of the sale of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced him to eight years on each conviction and ordered that the sentences run concurrently and be served in community corrections. The Defendant violated the terms of his community corrections sentence, and the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. The Defendant now appeals. Finding no error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm the Defendant's sentence.

The petitioner, Kelvin Wade Cloyd, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Following our review upon the record, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.