APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief which alleged that the charges against him were untrue, that the statutes of limitations as to the charges had expired before he was charged, and that his counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court determined that the allegations contained in the petitioner's pro se petition did not entitle him to habeas corpus relief. After careful review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The appellants sued the appellees for claims connected with the death of the appellants' twin fetuses. The jury found in favor of the appellees, and, in addition, after the jury verdict, the trial court granted appellee Dr. Caldwell's motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had run before he was sued. The appellants argue that this court should reverse the trial court's order dismissing Dr. Caldwell and overturn the jury's verdict. We reverse the trial court's order dismissing Dr. Caldwell, but affirm the jury verdict in his favor and in favor of the other appellee.

Following a police search of their home pursuant to a warrant, the defendants, mother and son, were each indicted on one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver, a Class E felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. At the conclusion of their joint trial, the son was found guilty of both counts as charged in the indictment. The jury found the mother guilty of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court denied their motions for new trials, and the defendants filed timely appeals to this court. On appeal, the defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in support of their respective convictions. The State raises the additional issue of whether the defendants may properly be represented by the same appellate counsel when the record is silent concerning whether the trial court addressed the possible conflict created by the joint representation. After a careful review of the record and an analysis of applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Randall Keith Smith, appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in his residence during the execution of a search warrant. A written "motion to suppress" was filed with the clerk on the day prior to Smith's scheduled trial for drug charges. On the date of trial, following the close of all proof in the case, Smith's trial counsel orally moved to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search, based upon the grounds recited in the written motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding that (1) there was no factual basis to support suppression; and (2) the motion was untimely. The jury found Smith guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and he received a three-year community corrections sentence. After review, we find the Appellant's suppression motion untimely. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Tenn. R. App. P. 54.02 does not provide this court
with jurisdiction in this case for the reasons set out in the majority opinion. I would, however, treat
this appeal as an interlocutory appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9. Bayberry would allow us to waive
the finality requirement of Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a) if we found good reason to suspend that
requirement.

Petitioner, John Clark Garrison, filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking his two convictions for theft of property over the value of $10,000.00 but less than $60,000.00. Petitioner was represented by counsel who filed the petition for post-conviction relief on his behalf. The State filed a response to the petition. The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding that all of the issues were either previously determined, waived, insufficient to assert specific allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, or presented no question of constitutional deprivation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition for failing to be properly verified under oath. The issue is whether a petition for post-conviction relief must be verified under oath and whether the petitioner's "affidavit and sworn statement" was sufficient to satisfy that requirement. We conclude that the post-conviction court was correct in summarily dismissing the petition for failing to be properly verified under oath.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Petitioner for one count of rape and one count of assault. The Petitioner's first trial ended with a hung jury. Following a second trial, the Petitioner was convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to an effective thirty years of incarceration. His convictions and sentences were upheld on direct appeal. See State v. George D. Fitzpatrick, No. 01C01-9709-CR-00398, 1998 WL 775665 at *1, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 4, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. After a hearing the court below dismissed the petition, from which ruling the Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Richard Burt McKee, No. 01C01-9606-CC-00278, 1998 WL 155558, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Mar. 31, 1998). The Defendant filed for post-conviction relief in December 1998 alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal and that juror misconduct during deliberations entitles him to a new trial. The post-conviction court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The Defendant now appeals as of right. Finding no merit in the Defendant's contentions, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

The defendant, Darlene Renee Blackhurst, pled guilty to second offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"), leaving the scene of an accident involving injury, and three counts of reckless aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days, to be served on intensive probation following a mandatory period of 45 days in confinement for the DUI second offense. In this appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred when it placed Defendant on full probation because the trial court failed to properly consider the victim's testimony during the sentencing hearing. Our de novo review reveals that the trial court did err in its application of the law concerning victims' statements and in granting probation for the full time remaining in Defendant's sentence following confinement. However, our conclusion regarding the impropriety of probation is based on sentencing considerations other than the testimony of the victim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment regarding the manner of service of Defendant's sentence and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Defendant should be incarcerated for the full term of her sentence or, in the alternative, serve the balance of her sentence in split confinement.

The petitioner, Larry Wade, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He asserts that the ineffective assistance of counsel and the unknowing and involuntary nature of his guilty pleas entitle him to relief from his convictions of attempted second degree murder and possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.