APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Darrell W. Smith, pled guilty in the Franklin County Circuit Court to evading arrest and operating a motor vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act, both Class E felonies. The parties agreed that the appellant would be sentenced on each conviction to one year and one day with the sentences to be served consecutively. The manner of service of the sentences was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in the county jail, with the balance of the sentences to be served in the community corrections program. On appeal, the appellant challenges the period of confinement. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this appeal the appellant was convicted of theft of property over $500 and sentenced to two (2) years on community corrections. Approximately three (3) months later he was convicted of vandalism of property valued under $500. At the time of his arrest on the vandalism charge the appellant was intoxicated. As a result of his conduct while on community corrections his sentence to this program was revoked. He was re-sentenced to one (1) year of continuous incarceration followed by one (1) year of community corrections.

An Obion County grand jury indicted the defendant, Justin Genel Hill, of two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. In a separate indictment, Clarence Carnell Gaston, Miqwon Deon Leach, and Mario Deangelo Thomas were also charged with crimes arising out of the same criminal episode. The defendant and these three men were tried in a single jury trial. The jury found Gaston, Leach, and Thomas guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, second degree murder, and first degree felony murder and found the defendant guilty of facilitation to commit second degree murder. See State v. Clarence Carnell Gaston, No. W2001-02046-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 261941, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Feb. 7, 2003). For the defendant's conviction, the trial court sentenced him to serve a ten-year sentence in the Department of Corrections. The defendant now brings this appeal of his conviction, alleging that the evidence introduced at trial is insufficient to support his conviction. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that the defendant's allegation lacks merit and accordingly affirm the defendant's conviction.

The appellant, Richard D. Batey, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of possession of more than .5 grams of a substance containing cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eight years split confinement, with one year to be served in confinement and the remaining seven years to be served in the community corrections program. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal as a certified question of law the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant's probation was revoked after his house was searched and a twelve-gauge shotgun was found inside. The defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to revoke his probation. The defendant contends the rules of probation and a police report were improperly admitted into evidence. Because the trial court is only required to find a violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence, we affirm the trial court's revocation of probation.

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's upholding of the district attorney general's denial of her application for pretrial diversion. She argues that the district attorney general erred in not considering all required factors in the diversion denial and the trial court erred in taking testimony, upon which it relied in upholding the denial of diversion. Based upon our review, we reverse the order of the trial court denying pretrial diversion and remand for a reconsideration by the district attorney general of the defendant's diversion application.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant of robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years' incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury by failing to limit the definition of "property" in its instruction to the jury; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence at the sentencing hearing a transcript of a prior trial; and (3) that his sentence is excessive. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The petitioner, Delbert Lee Harris, was convicted in the Dickson County Circuit Court of aggravated assault, rape, rape of a child, and attempted sexual battery. The petitioner was ultimately sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty-two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, complaining that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that several errors occurred during trial. The postconviction court partially granted the petition and dismissed the remainder of the petitioner’s issues.  The petitioner and the State timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed in all respects except for the dismissal of the rape conviction.

On December 6, 1996, the petitioner was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated kidnaping. On direct appeal, those convictions were affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on May 10, 1999. On June 21, 2001, the petitioner filed, pro se, a document titled "motion for extraordinary relief." The trial court dismissed the motion, characterizing it as a petition for post-conviction relief, and barred by the one-year statute of limitations. We affirm the dismissal from the trial court.

The defendant originally pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to various theft and forgery offenses as a Range II multiple offender for an effective six-year sentence, most of which would be served on community corrections. At the time of the plea, he agreed his sentence would be increased to ten years if he violated the community corrections program. He was subsequently revoked and ordered to serve an effective ten-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends the trial court failed to make sentencing findings and imposed illegal sentences above the authorized Range II punishment. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing.