APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a direct appeal from a conviction of facilitation to commit felony murder. The defendant, Zina Beth Finnell, was indicted for felony murder by a Davidson County Grand Jury in connection with the murder of her step-father during the commission of an aggravated burglary. A jury convicted the defendant of facilitation to commit felony murder, and the trial court sentenced her to 21 years. On appeal, the defendant argues two issues: (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress her statement to the police, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty of facilitation to commit felony murder. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Randy David Miles, was convicted by a Franklin County Circuit Court jury of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, for his participation with a codefendant, Gary Allen Phillips, Jr., in grabbing a woman from the street in Northern Alabama and transporting her by car to the defendant's grandmother's abandoned farmhouse in Huntland, Tennessee, where the defendant raped her while his codefendant watched. The defendant was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of eleven years, nine months for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and twenty-four years, six months for each of the aggravated rape convictions, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years, six months. His Tennessee sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to his Alabama sentence for kidnapping. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the State's failure to make a proper election of offenses, and the sentences imposed by the trial court. Following our review, we conclude that one of the aggravated rape convictions is invalid because the facts upon which the State relied to support the separate convictions constitute only one offense. Accordingly, we reverse one of the defendant's convictions for aggravated rape. We affirm the judgments as to the other aggravated rape conviction and the aggravated kidnapping conviction but modify the sentences to twenty-two years and nine years, respectively.

Petitioner, Raymond Roger Jones, appeals the Washington County Criminal Court's dismissal of his pro se combined motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, petition for writ of error coram nobis, and petition for DNA analysis. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court of two counts of first degree murder. He received consecutive life sentences. This Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See State v. Jones, 735 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Washington County Criminal Court. The trial court dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed. See Raymond Roger Jones v. State, No. 03C01-9102-CR-00068, 1991 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 584, (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 26, 1991), perm. to app. denied (Tenn. 1992). On June 22, 2001, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, alleging that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), established a new rule of constitutional law requiring retroactive application to his case. Petitioner subsequently filed a supplemental request for DNA analysis. The trial court dismissed the motion and denied Petitioner's request for DNA Analysis. Petitioner appeals. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On May 1, 2003, the defendant, Worley K. Henry, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of theft of property valued at less than $500, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, and tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days each for the theft and possession convictions and six years for the tampering with evidence conviction. The theft and evidence tampering sentences were to run concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the possession sentence. The defendant appealed his convictions for theft of property valued at less than $500 and tampering with evidence. He has alleged that the evidence is insufficient to support verdicts of guilty for these offenses. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor assault and the refusal of the trial court to impose an alternative sentence of judicial diversion or full probation. After review, we reverse the conviction for the trial court’s failure to instruct on self-defense. In the event of further appellate review, we have considered all issues raised on appeal. The cause is remanded for a new trial.

Appellant has appealed before final judgment was entered. We dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Ambreco Shaw, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, for shooting a man to death at a Memphis public housing development. The trial court sentenced him as a standard, violent offender to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction, applying four enhancement factors to increase his sentence from the presumptive twenty-year midpoint in the range. In a timely filed appeal to this court, the defendant raised as his sole issue whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. However, following the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___ , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), which was released during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant sought and received permission from this court to raise as an additional issue the impact of the Blakely decision on the sentencing imposed in his case. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction and that two of the four enhancement factors were appropriately applied under Blakely. We further conclude that the applicable factors justify the enhanced sentence in the case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the postconviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel and in denying his request to represent himself at the post-conviction proceeding. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

I concur in the majority opinion. I have chosen to write separately to express concern over two issues that appear from the record and that are not addressed by either party. Admittedly, the record is unclear but the majority opinion concludes that the petitioner originally filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, that counsel was appointed, and that the petition was summarily dismissed in August of 1998. In February of 2001, the petitioner again filed a pro se motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, which was granted by the post-conviction court. I found nothing in the record that would support the reopening of the petitioner's original post-conviction relief petition. Next, it appears that the petitioner was appointed counsel and on the second day of the hearing, the petitioner filed a pro se amended petition for post-conviction relief and was allowed an additional day in which to present evidence. This procedure appears to be in conflict with the holdings of our supreme court in State v. William Lee Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365. The petitioner in the instant case did not have a constitutional right to participate in propria persona and, simultaneously, be represented by participating counsel.

We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by reversing the defendant’s conviction for premeditated first degree murder and his sentence of death. Upon review, we hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in reversing the defendant’s conviction and sentence. In particular, we conclude that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on facilitation and solicitation or by permitting the medical examiner to display the victim’s cleaned and reconstructed skull as a demonstrative aid during his testimony; that the prosecution did not present inconsistent theories and evidence in the separate trials of the defendant and co-defendant Prentiss Phillips; and that the sentence of death is not disproportionate considering the circumstances of the crime and the defendant. Having reinstated the defendant’s conviction and sentence, we have also reviewed and considered all other errors alleged by the defendant and conclude that none warrants relief. With respect to issues not herein specifically addressed, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Relevant portions of that opinion are published hereafter as an appendix. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

The petitioner, Vincent Hatch, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This appeal involves a dispute between a homeowner and a contractor over the validity of an arbitration award. After the arbitrator awarded the contractor $52,725, the contractor filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Sumner County to confirm the award and to recover the costs of the arbitration. The homeowner challenged the award on the ground that he had not been afforded a hearing. The contractor filed a motion for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss the homeowner's counterclaim, and a motion for attorney's fees under the arbitration agreement. The trial court, granting the contractor's motions, confirmed the $52,725 arbitration decision and awarded the contractor $500 in arbitration expenses and $2,205 in attorney's fees. The homeowner has appealed. We have determined that the arbitration award must be vacated because of the arbitrator's failure to provide the parties a hearing before rendering his decision.

The defendant, Billy Wayne Quillen, pled guilty to two counts of attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud and was placed on judicial diversion for two years. His diversion was subsequently revoked, and the trial court reinstated his original two-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve his sentence at 100% without release eligibility, and the State agrees. Based upon our review, we modify the defendant's sentence to reflect release eligibility after service of 30% of the two-year sentence.

The petitioner, Wayne Davidson, was convicted in the Meigs County Criminal Court of second degree burglary. Upon being found by a jury to be an habitual criminal, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed in the Davidson County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the statutes under which he received a life sentence were unconstitutional. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Donavan Edward Daniel, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging, as amended, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing (1) to raise the legality of Petitioner’s detention as an issue in his motion to suppress; (2) to demonstrate a particularized need for expert services and timely present the affidavit of the proposed expert to the trial court; and (3) to request a mistrial or curative instruction when two prospective jurors stated during voir dire that they were familiar with Petitioner’s juvenile record and family background.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner’s request for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in Case No. 242704 in which Defendant alleged that the municipal ordinance supporting his conviction for reckless driving was unlawfully enacted. Defendant also appeals the trial court's order declaring him to be an habitual motor vehicle offender in Case No. 239641. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgments in Case Nos. 242704 and 239641.

This appeal involves a dispute over the custody of a non-marital child. The child's father requested the Wilson County Juvenile Court to designate him as the child's primary residential parent because of the mother's history of substance abuse. Following a bench trial, the juvenile court designated the mother as the child's primary residential parent and established a visitation schedule for the father. The court also ordered the father to pay child support and to maintain insurance for the child. The father asserts on this appeal (1) that the juvenile court's findings of fact were insufficient, (2) that the evidence does not support designating the mother as the child's primary residential parent, and (3) that the court based its decision on the outmoded tender years doctrine. We affirm the juvenile court's order.

The issue in this case is whether child support may be awarded when neither party has been designated the primary residential parent. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s judgment to award equal parenting time between the parties. Neither party contests this modification. We hold that the Court of Appeals erred, however, in awarding child support to one party when neither party was designated the primary residential parent. We remand to the trial court for the designation of a primary residential parent, for the consideration of the amount of child support to be paid, and for entry of a parenting plan.

The petitioner, George G. Faulkner, appeals the order dismissing 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, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Petitioner, Tony Mabry, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  Petitioner argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because she (1) failed to request a pre-trial voice line-up; (2) failed to cross-examine the victim about his prior statements to the police; and (3) failed to subpoena the police officer who took the victim’s initial statement to testify at trial. After a thorough review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.