APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Stacy R. Dowell, appeals as of right his conviction, following a bench trial before the Johnson County Criminal Court, for driving while his blood alcohol concentration was .10 or greater, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days with forty-eight hours to be served in the county jail and the remainder on probation. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relative to his blood alcohol concentration. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant, Stacy R. Dowell, appeals as of right his conviction, following a bench trial before the Johnson County Criminal Court, for driving while his blood alcohol concentration was .10 or greater, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days with forty-eight hours to be served in the county jail and the remainder on probation. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relative to his blood alcohol concentration. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant contends the trial court erred in denying her judicial diversion and full probation following her guilty plea for identity theft, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced her to two years in split confinement, with ninety days to be served in weekend confinement, and the balance served on probation. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay one thousand dollars ($1000) in restitution. Because the trial court failed to place its findings on the record, we remand for a new sentencing hearing.

The petitioner, Edward Dean Mullins, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the petitioner's guiltypleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's claim of prosecutorial misconduct; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's motion for severance; and (5) whether the trial court erred by ruling that the indictment need not include the applicable aggravating circumstances. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner, Edward Dean Mullins, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the petitioner's guilty pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's claim of prosecutorial misconduct; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's motion for severance; and (5) whether the trial court erred by ruling that the indictment need not include the applicable aggravating circumstances. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant entered guilty pleas to aggravated assault, A misdemeanor theft of services, E felony vandalism, and two counts of aggravated burglary. For these offenses the defendant received an agreed upon effective sentence of six years with the manner of service to be determined at a subsequent sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court denied the defendant alternative sentencing. Through the instant appeal the defendant contests this denial. However, after reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we find that the defendant waived this issue and that, even if not waived, the claim lacks merit. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's action

The Defendant, Rolando Rosas Contreras, was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated assault. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-five years for each of the three rape convictions, and he was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to six years for each of the two convictions for aggravated assault. The trial court ordered all sentences to be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by sentencing him to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. We affirm the convictions and modify the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The defendant, Gregory Pierce, pled guilty to attempted rape of a child, and the trial court accordingly sentenced him to serve eight years as a Range I standard offender for that conviction. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for alternative sentencing based upon the defendant's pre-sentence report, which includes a risk assessment evaluation outlining the defendant's potential to re-offend. The defendant now appeals the trial court's denial of his alternative sentencing request, arguing that the denial was improperly based on his polygraph results. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court acted properly and accordingly affirm the defendant's sentence.

The Defendant, Gregory Lamont Jordan, brings this appeal from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery and possession of a weapon. In this appeal, he argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the course of his plea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dena Paulette Rackliff, was found guilty by a jury of falsely accusing her ex-husband of sexually abusing their seven-year-old daughter, which constitutes a class E felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to eighteen months in the Robertson County jail. The trial court further ordered that after the Defendant served ten days in jail, her sentence would be probated for six years. The Defendant presents three issues in this appeal as of right: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for falsely reporting child sexual abuse; (2) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the conduct that constitutes the crime of falsely reporting child sexual abuse; and (3) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Michael Kennedy, pled nolo contendere to numerous burglary, theft and vandalism charges in Chester and Henderson Counties. He received an effective sentence of fifteen years. The cases were consolidated at the trial level and on appeal. Pursuant to the plea agreement reserving a certified question of law, the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress items found during an illegal search. We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction as to three of the cases in Henderson County because the certified question of law is not dispositive of these cases. We affirm the remaining judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, William Roy Gray, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Madison County of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail and imposed a one hundred fifty dollar fine ($150) for the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction and six months in the county jail for the resisting arrest conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress, in failing to consider certain mitigating factors when sentencing the appellant, and in ordering the appellant to serve his sentences consecutively. After a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Robertson County jury convicted the Appellant, Tim D. Gardner, of possession of over 300 grams of cocaine, with intent to sell, a class A felony. Gardner raises one issue for our review: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. After review, we conclude that the proof is sufficient. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant, Terry Lynn Carter, appeals her conviction in the Hardeman County Circuit Court for aggravated assault. Defendant was sentenced, as a Range II multiple offender, to serve nine years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that the trial court erred by allowing the assistant district attorney to make improper comments at trial; and that the prosecuting attorney failed to provide defense counsel prior to trial with a copy of a letter that Defendant wrote to the victim. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the letter into evidence because the State violated its discovery obligation to Defendant. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

John A. Carter, Sr., was tried and acquitted of second-degree murder in the Davidson County Criminal Court for the stabbing death of Simon Doig; he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a mid-range, three-year sentence. Carter claims in this appeal that the court should have given him a minimum, two-year sentence. Because we find no error in the trial court's sentencing pronouncement, we affirm.

A Rhea County jury convicted the Defendant of first offense DUI, and the trial court sentenced her to forty-eight hours' confinement. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that insufficient evidence was presented to support her conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by denying her challenge to one of the jurors during voir dire; (3) that the trial court erred by denying her pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictments; (4) that the trial court erred by allowing the arresting officer to testify as to the contents of an alcoholic beverage; and (5) that her constitutional rights were violated when the State failed to provide her with a "legible" copy of a videotape taken of her at jail following her arrest. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant's conviction and that the trial court erred by allowing the arresting officer to testify as to the contents of an alcoholic beverage, but that the error was harmless. We further conclude that the Defendant has waived all other issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.