APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Doyle Borders, pled guilty to possession of Dilaudid, a Schedule II controlled substance, with the intent to sell or deliver. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law concerns the validity of a search warrant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a bench trial, the Defendant, Janice Hall, was convicted of two counts of vandalism under five hundred dollars, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial judge sentenced her to concurrent terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with thirty-five days to serve in confinement. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial judge erred by ordering her to serve thirty-five days in confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Scott Dwayne Martin, appeals from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner contends that because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, his guilty pleas were neither knowingly nor voluntarily made. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was tried on two counts of first degree premeditated murder and convicted of two counts of facilitation of first degree murder for which he received consecutive twenty-four-year sentences. In his appeal, he presents the following claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of others having motives to kill the victims; (3) the State made an improper statement during its closing argument that constituted plain error; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner and his co-defendant were convicted of aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping. The Petitioner appealed, and our Court affirmed the convictions. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied. Our Court affirmed the denial, concluding that the Petitioner had received effective assistance of counsel. The Petitioner then filed a post-conviction petition requesting DNA (deoxyribonucleic) testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. After the State responded that no biological evidence was in existence to be tested, the Petitioner requested that the court appoint him new counsel. The trial court denied both the Petitioner's post-conviction petition for DNA testing and his request for new counsel. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his post-conviction petition for DNA testing and by denying his request for new counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, James Russell Gann, petitioned for habeas corpus relief on the grounds that his judgment of conviction is not signed by the trial judge. The trial court denied relief and this direct appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Franklin County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant and Susan Davis, the co-defendant, for one count of aggravated robbery and for one count of theft of property valued between five hundred and one thousand dollars. A jury convicted the Defendant and co-defendant on both counts. The Defendant now appeals, contesting the sufficiency of the State's evidence. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the State did not introduce sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant entered the home of the alleged victims. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Edward Lee Tucker, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder due to the invalidity of the plea. The trial court found that the motion should be considered as a petition for post-conviction relief and dismissed the petition as barred by the statute of limitations. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner was originally convicted by a Davidson County jury on nine counts of aggravated sexual battery and received an effective ninety-year sentence. He now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending: (1) the post-conviction judge, who was a Deputy District Attorney General at the time of the original prosecution, should have recused herself; (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; (3) numerous errors of constitutional dimension occurred at his original trial and on direct appeal; and (4) cumulative errors require that he be granted relief. In spite of our concerns regarding the recusal issue, we are unable to discern any material distinctions with prior cases which have affirmed the failure to recuse. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Phyllis Hines, pled guilty to two counts of simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The Sevier County trial court imposed consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each count of assault. It then ordered the defendant to serve the first eleven-month and twenty-nine-day sentence at 75% in confinement followed by probation. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Shaun Givens, 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. After review, we conclude that the Petitioner fails to assert a ground entitling him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Defendant, Jeffrey Douglas Stratton, was indicted on two counts of burglary. Defendant entered guilty pleas to both counts. Defendant was sentenced to two years for each conviction, to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to his sentence for a prior conviction. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of incarceration. After reviewing the record, we conclude that a sentence of confinement was supported by the record. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Christopher David Hodge, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of attempted first-degree murder and received an aggregate sentence of thirty-one years for his convictions. The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, and after conducing an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petitioner's request for relief. The petitioner brings the instant appeal arguing that the post-conviction court erroneously dismissed his petition and that he is entitled to relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Leonard H. Steele, pled guilty to driving on a revoked license, third offense, and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended except for six months in the county jail, with the balance to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying him jail credit for time he served in 1998 as a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO) in an unrelated case, even though, unknown to him, his MVHO status had been withdrawn in 1997. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Chad A. Hodge, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his guilty plea to second degree murder was not knowing and voluntary. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court's findings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Putnam County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for theft and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The trial court severed the counts, and a jury convicted the Defendant on the weapon charge. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years incarceration, to be served consecutively to an unrelated sentence. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction, (2) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and (3) that the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant, both in length and by requiring the sentence to be served consecutively to the unrelated sentence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Marcus Rogers, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-four years for these crimes. On appeal, he argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the verdicts. After review, we find the evidence sufficient and affirm the judgments of the trial court.