APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable ground for reopening his petition. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, who pled guilty to one count of first degree murder and one count of second degree murder, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the trial court should have granted him relief based on newly discovered evidence which allegedly showed that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest at the time he entered his pleas of guilty. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the petition.

Indicted for the February 10, 2001 first degree premeditated murder of Anthony Sims, the defendant, John Wayne Britt, was convicted by a Henderson County jury of second degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 25 years in the Department of Correction. Now on appeal, the defendant claims that insufficient evidence supports his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant entered open guilty pleas to three counts of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, possession of over 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, simple possession of marijuana, and driving on a revoked license. The trial court gave the defendant an effective sentence of nine years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a ground of relief entitling him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, William Henry Vaughan, IV, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated arson. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and to twenty-five years for the arson, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant makes the following claims: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (3) the sequestered jury was separated; (4) the trial court erred by admitting a police officer's written report in its entirety; (5) he was deprived of his fundamental constitutional right to testify; (6) the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions; and (7) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Because we find that the Defendant was deprived of his fundamental constitutional right to testify, and because the State has failed to demonstrate that the deprivation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we vacate the Defendant's convictions and remand this matter for a new trial.

The Petitioner, Timmy Herndon, 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. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Eric Biggs appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Biggs is presently serving an effective 45-year sentence for fourteen robbery-related offenses to which he pleaded guilty. In his post-conviction attack, he claims that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel in the conviction proceedings and that as a result, his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. The petitioner also makes a second claim that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he believed that his sentencing range would increase with each subsequent conviction.

The defendant, Mikel Ulysees Primm, was convicted of speeding, simple possession of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and criminal impersonation. The trial court imposed a sentence of 30 days for the speeding offense, 11 months and 29 days on each of the three possession offenses, and six months for the criminal impersonation offense. The sentence for criminal impersonation is to be served consecutively to the sentence for simple possession of cocaine. The remaining sentences are to be served concurrently to the sentence for simple possession of cocaine and to each other. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court provided erroneous instructions to the jury as to the definition of constructive possession. The judgments are affirmed.

The defendant, Billy M. Higgins, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation for failure to complete a drug rehabilitation program. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court.

Charles Johnston appeals from his Carter County Criminal Court conviction of contempt of court. He claims that the evidence does not sufficiently support the conviction, that his due process rights were violated in the conviction proceedings, that the court erroneously admitted an audiotape of prior proceedings in the general sessions court, that he was sentenced too harshly and unfairly denied judicial diversion, and that the lower court abused its discretion in setting his appeal bond. Because we discern no reversible error, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

The appellant, Kevin Lamont Hutchison, was convicted by a jury in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant to seventeen years imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and robbery. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in (1) not properly transferring the case from juvenile court, (2) denying her request for a continuance, (3) admitting a tape recorded statement by the defendant, (4) admitting certain photographs of the victim, (5) refusing to allow expert testimony regarding the defendant's mental condition, (6) refusing to allow evidence of a co-defendant's subsequent crimes, (7) failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser included offenses, and (8) sentencing. We conclude that the trial court erred in applying enhancement factors six and ten. The trial court also erred in not applying the mitigating factor (victim released alive) to the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. The sentence is reduced for (1) aggravated robbery from ten years to nine years, (2) aggravated kidnapping from ten years to nine years, and (3) especially aggravated kidnapping from twenty-one years to twenty years. We reverse the trial court's determination that the sentences should be served consecutively. We remand to the trial court to amend the judgment for case number 01-00564 to reflect that the defendant was a standard violent offender rather than a repeat violent offender. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

The defendant was convicted of facilitation of felony murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced to twenty-three years. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in 1) allowing testimony by Dozier that the defendant told her the victim had been involved in the robbery because the statement was inadmissible hearsay, and 2) refusing to admit the prior written statement of Dozier into evidence under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 613(b). We remand for correction of the judgment form to reflect the correct felony classifications. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Andre Anthony, was convicted of two counts of forgery over five hundred dollars, one count of forgery over one thousand dollars, one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. In his appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempt to commit first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery; (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through an inventory search of Defendant's vehicle; (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that "serious bodily injury" is an element of the offense of especially aggravated robbery; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering Defendant's sentences for attempt to commit first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery to be served consecutively. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.