APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Blount County jury convicted the Defendant of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The jury also convicted the Defendant of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years incarceration, to be served consecutive to the two sentences for first degree premeditated murder. The Defendant now appeals, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on all lesser-included offenses raised by the evidence, (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on duress, necessity and accessory after the fact, (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing into evidence testimony regarding the Defendant's pending aggravated assault trial, (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing into evidence a magazine clip confiscated from the Defendant by police two months before the murders, (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing to find the sentencing provisions of the Tennessee homicide laws to be unconstitutional, (6) whether the Defendant's convictions for especially aggravated robbery and theft violated his right against double jeopardy, (7) whether the indictment was constitutionally defective on its face, and (8) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of the charged offenses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form in Count III of indictment number 11329.

Convicted of aggravated robbery, Ronnie Watson appeals the Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to suppress the statements he gave to a law enforcement officer shortly after the commission of the crime. We hold that the issue has been waived by Watson’s failure to include it in his motion for new trial.

The petitioner originally pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and second offense driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-four years. The effective sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging an unknowing guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing the petition based solely upon the guilty plea transcript. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Jonathan Omar Echevarria, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court imposing a sentence of four years incarceration. The sentence arose from a guilty plea entered by Echevarria to one count of attempted aggravated robbery. In this appeal, Echevarria raises the issue of whether the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, we find no error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Apparently serving probationary terms on judicial diversion, Vasile Cavopol attempts to appeal from the Davidson County Criminal Court. He claims (1) that the lower court should have dismissed the vandalism and resisting arrest cases against him when the state's witnesses did not appear for trial on two occasions and (2) that the evidence insufficiently supports the determinations of guilt. Because the defendant who was granted judicial diversion has no rightful appeal, we dismiss this appeal.

The appellant, Earley Story, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of selling not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana, a Class E felony. The appellant was sentenced to one year of incarceration in the Shelby County Jail, which sentence was immediately probated. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on the appellant's pro se motion alleging a failure to afford him a speedy trial; (2) whether the trial court wrongly forced the appellant to trial with unwanted counsel, which counsel were appointed without any evidence that the appellant was unable to employ counsel of his choosing; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting purported transcripts of tape recordings. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Carlos Bierner, was charged with aggravated sexual battery. After his trial had commenced, but prior to its conclusion, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. In accordance with the negotiated plea agreement, Defendant received a sentence of eight years, as a multiple Range II offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation or any other form of alternative sentencing and ordered that Defendant serve the eight years in confinement, at thirty-five percent eligibility. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of continuous confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, William R. McLeod, Jr., pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received an eight-year sentence for each conviction with the issue of concurrent or consecutive sentencing to be decided by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentences consecutively for an effective sentence of sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, David D. Bottoms, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's order of restitution following his conviction for arson. On appeal, Bottoms argues the amount of restitution was excessive. Upon de novo review, we find that the victim did not provide sufficient evidence of his pecuniary loss for damages to the rental property. Accordingly, the amount of restitution as imposed by the trial court is modified, and the case is remanded for entry of a sentencing order in accordance with this opinion.

On September 14, 1984, the petitioner, Morris Rucker, was convicted of three violent offenses and was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On June 21, 2001, the petitioner mailed from prison a petition for post-conviction relief alleging four grounds for relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as being time-barred. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition. Upon reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, James William Dash, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. In this appeal of right, the petitioner argues that the trial court clerk erroneously filed the petition in the criminal court rather than the circuit court, that his judgment of conviction is void, and that the trial court erred in the assessment of costs. The trial court's order taxing costs to the petitioner is reversed. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Kenneth Ray White, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court denying his request for probation. In this appeal, White raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a sentence of incarceration rather than the less restrictive alternative of community corrections. After review, we find no abuse of discretion. As such, the trial court's decision is affirmed.

The appellant, Joseph Batts, was convicted by a jury of the offense of rape. He was sentenced to a term of twelve (12) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for rape and that his sentence is excessive. After carefully reviewing the record as presented, we are of the opinion that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Moreover, in the absence of a transcript of the sentencing hearing we must presume the sentence is correct. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Roy C. Smith, Jr., pled guilty to one count of rape of a child and was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his conviction is illegal because he pled guilty to a crime that was not in effect at the time of the commission of the offense.  The trial court dismissed the petition and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’  briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.