APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

Defendant, Kendrick F. Love, was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury on four counts of delivery of cocaine and four counts of the sale of cocaine, all Class B felonies. Defendant was convicted by a jury of his peers of facilitation of the sale of cocaine, facilitation of the delivery of cocaine, three counts of the sale of cocaine, and three counts of delivery of cocaine. Defendant received a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the offenses. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Based on our review, we conclude that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief.

On September 20, 1999, the Defendant pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1000 and to attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years for the theft conviction and to six years for the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court suspended both sentences and placed the Defendant on six years' probation. On June 24, 2001, the Defendant was arrested for theft of property valued over $500. Based on the arrest, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by revoking her probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Joshua Aaron Roush, appeals the sentencing decision of the Knox County Criminal Court. Roush pled guilty to attempted second degree murder and, following a hearing, was sentenced as a Range I offender to a term of eleven years in the Department of Correction. Roush appeals, asserting that his sentence was excessive because the trial court failed to comply with relevant sentencing principles and erred in not applying six mitigating factors. After a review of the record, we find that Roush's issue is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

The appellant, Sybil Baker, was convicted by a Franklin County jury of one count of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage. The trial court properly merged the convictions for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment and imposed a sentence of five years to be served in community corrections. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the convictions of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, or leaving the scene of an accident. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the appellant's convictions and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Billy F. Johnson, of first degree premeditated and felony murder and theft of property valued more than five hundred dollars but less than one thousand dollars, a Class E felony. The trial court merged the murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life in the Department of Correction (DOC). For the theft conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to two years to be served concurrently to the life sentence. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his premeditated murder and theft convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confessions; and (3) that the trial court erred by refusing to order the prosecutor to stop misstating the facts during closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After a Shelby County Criminal Court jury found the defendant, Genore Dancy, guilty of four counts of aggravated rape, seven counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, five counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary, the trial court merged the aggravated rape verdicts into two aggravated rape convictions, imposed the remaining convictions, and sentenced the defendant to an effective incarcerative term of 150 years. In his appeal, the defendant claims that his especially aggravated kidnapping convictions violate principles of due process, that the evidence in one of the aggravated rape counts was insufficient to support that conviction, that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offense of facilitation, and that, in sentencing the defendant, the trial court erred in not applying a mitigating factor and in misapplying various enhancement factors. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Paul Graham Manning, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and felony reckless endangerment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises six issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses; (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the culpable mental state required for premeditated murder; (4) whether the Defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial; (5) whether the trial court erred by not reducing his bond; and (6) whether the trial court erred in quashing the Defendant's subpoena for certain witnesses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Tipton County jury convicted the defendant of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine. On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor improperly questioned the defendant about prior drug sales; and (3) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding his co-defendant's status as an accomplice. We conclude the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial.