APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Willie Tom Ensley, appeals the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition requesting DNA analysis. The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition without the appointment of counsel, an opportunity to amend, or an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

The defendant, William Rhea Jackson, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and aggravated burglary, Class C felonies, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of six and five years, respectively. The trial court also ordered that the defendant serve his effective eleven-year sentence consecutive to an effective thirty-four-year sentence that he received for offenses committed five days before the current crimes. He appeals, claiming that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Maury County jury convicted the defendant, Pharez Price, of facilitation of felony murder, facilitation of attempted first degree murder, facilitation of attempted second degree murder, facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and criminal responsibility for the conduct of another for felony reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-three years. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the trial court improperly found a child witness competent to testify, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for any of the offenses other than felony reckless endangerment. We reverse and dismiss the convictions for facilitation of attempted first degree murder and facilitation of attempted second degree murder, affirm the other convictions, and remand for a determination of concurrent/consecutive sentencing.

In this appeal the appellant, Louis Tyrone Robinson, complains that the Davidson County Criminal Court erroneously dismissed his petition for the writ of habeas corpus without affording the appellant a hearing on the petition. After reviewing the record in this matter we are of the opinion that the criminal court was correct in its summary dismissal of the petition and we therefore affirm the action of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The defendant, Gabor Palasti, was convicted upon his pleas of guilty to the charges of vehicular assault and three counts of reckless endangerment. He originally received a four year effective sentence with 11 months, 29 days of incarceration followed by probation. This was ultimately altered by the trial judge to require that the defendant serve six (6) months in confinement with thirty days of continuous confinement followed by five months of work release and then supervised probation. In this appeal the defendant contends he should have received full probation for these offenses and he cites numerous alleged deficiencies in the trial court's sentencing procedures. We find that in sentencing the defendant the trial court failed to make appropriate findings on the record and that therefore our review of the defendant's sentence is de novo without a presumption of correctness. Nevertheless, we find that the record contains sufficient evidence from which this Court concludes that six (6) months confinement of the defendant is appropriate. However, we believe the entire confinement should be served on work release. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the trial court with the modification that the entire period of incarceration be served on work release.

[Deleted: Introductory Paragraph]

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed.

DAVID G. HAYES, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JERRY L.  SMITH and JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JJ., joined.
 

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Sullivan County Criminal Court denied the petitioner, Tony Allen Leonard, post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred in failing to find that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Because the record supports the lower court's findings and holding, we affirm.

The defendant, Toby P. Leonard, entered pleas of guilt to aggravated assault and civil rights intimidation. As a part of the plea agreement, the defendant received Range I, consecutive sentences of six and two years, respectively, for an effective sentence of eight years. The trial court denied probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that he should have been granted an alternative sentence. The judgment is affirmed.

Through a 2001 Tipton County Circuit Court post-conviction petition, Austin Eugene Lineback challenges his 2001 convictions in that court of statutory rape and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The convictions resulted from his guilty pleas, which the petitioner now
alleges are involuntary and unknowing due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the lower court denied post-conviction relief, and the petitioner now appeals.  Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm.

The defendant, Eric Alonzo Smith, was convicted of driving on a revoked license, aggravated robbery, and evading arrest. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 6 months, 8.5 years, and 11 months, 29 days, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated robbery. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant, Paul Anthony Wright, pled guilty in the Obion County Circuit Court to manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years, with ninety days to be served in the county jail and the remainder in a community corrections program. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in finding there was probable cause to issue a search warrant for his property. On appeal, the defendant argues that he properly certified the question for appeal whether the trial court erred in concluding that the search warrant sufficiently established probable cause for the search of his premises. We agree with the defendant that the certified question is properly before this court and agree with the State that the trial court properly determined that the search warrant was adequate. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.