APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Claude W. Cheeks, was convicted by a jury in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of one count of especially aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant appealed and on July 22, 2002, this court reversed his convictions, finding that the appellant had met his burden of establishing his insanity at the time of the offenses. 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 for the sole purpose of remanding the case to this court for reconsideration in light of its opinion in State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002). Upon reconsideration, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, serving an effective twenty-year sentence on three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, argues the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because: (1) his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently; and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Willie Ira Poteat, Jr., was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury for possession of more than 26 grams of cocaine for resale and criminal conspiracy to sell more than 26 grams of cocaine. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence taken during the execution of a search warrant, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges against him, reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law regarding the trial court's ruling on the suppression issue. We now address the Defendant's appeal based upon this certified question of law.

The petitioner, John Haws Burrell, has been convicted of twelve counts of sexual battery, three counts of rape, and two counts of coercion of a witness for which he is serving an effective twenty-four-year sentence. See State v. John Haws Burrell, No. 03C01-9404-CR-00157, 1997 WL 53455 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Feb. 11, 1997). The petitioner brings the instant appeal of the lower court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We find that the lower court properly summarily dismissed the petition because several of the alleged bases for relief in the petition are not proper grounds for habeas relief and the remaining allegations lack merit.

The appellant, Angelee Prater, was convicted by a jury of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony and fined $25,000. As a result of the conviction, the trial court sentenced her to twenty-one years and six months incarceration as a Range I, standard offender and classified her release eligibility at 100% as a violent offender. After the trial court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial, she appealed. The appellant argues on appeal that the aggravated child abuse statutes, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-15-401 and -402 are unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct and that the evidence was not sufficient to support a verdict of guilt. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the statutes in question are constitutional and that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of guilt. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Barry Inman, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, possession of Alprazolam with the intent to sell or deliver, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding. Additionally, the appellant pled guilty to driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgments of acquittal and that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Roger L. Smith, pled guilty to three counts of child rape in 1998. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief and for DNA testing. The trial court summarily dismissed the post-conviction petition on the grounds that it is time-barred. The trial court further summarily denied the Defendant's request for DNA testing. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Defendant's claim for post-conviction relief, but reverse and remand for further proceedings the trial court's dismissal of the Defendant's request for DNA testing.

In a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to the sale of under .5 grams of cocaine and agreed to a seven-year sentence. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined at a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the entire sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction, because the defendant had not demonstrated the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. We find no error in the sentence and, therefore, affirm.