APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial where he was convicted of second degree murder. We affirm.

The defendant, Charles R. Blackstock, pled guilty to especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of rape of a child. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-305, 39-13-522. The trial court imposed 25-year sentences on each offense. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of 75 years. The sentence for especially aggravated kidnapping and the consecutive sentencing order are affirmed. Because the trial court erroneously applied certain enhancement factors to each of the sentences for rape of a child, the terms are modified to 23 years.

The defendant, George E. Ratliff, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant alleges various errors by the trial court, challenges his sentence, and appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis on the ground of untimely filing. After a review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition for writ of error coram nobis based on the recent decision of our supreme court in Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001). We remand this matter to the trial court for a hearing on the merits of the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Pursuant to State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999), appellate proceedings on Defendant's appeal as of right from his conviction are stayed, pending the trial court's ruling on the error coram nobis petition.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years as a Violent Offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial confession. We conclude that the defendant's initial arrest was without probable cause, and that the defendant's confession was obtained approximately 53 hours from his arrest without a judicial determination of probable cause. The defendant's confession was, therefore, erroneously admitted, and the error was not harmless. We reverse the defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial.

Defendant challenges the denial of pretrial diversion by the District Attorney General and subsequent denial of relief by the trial court. We conclude that the defendant failed to file a petition for writ of certiorari and improperly sought to have the trial court consider matters not presented to the District Attorney General; thus, defendant has failed to establish that the District Attorney General abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Charles Shelton, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by the Johnson County, Tennessee, Criminal Court. Following a review of the petition and the record herein we find that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED.

The defendant, Stella Rodifer, was convicted of forgery, a felony; six counts of worthless checks under $500.00, misdemeanors; and one count of worthless checks over $1,000.00, a felony. The defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of two and four years, respectively, on each of the felonies. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 11 months and 29 days on each misdemeanor, two of which were ordered to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of seven years, 11 months, and 27 days. The trial court granted probation on the misdemeanors and sentenced the defendant to a Community Corrections program on the felonies. Four months later, the trial court revoked the alternative sentences and ordered the defendant to serve four years for forgery; eight years for felony worthless checks; and 11 months and 29 days (two consecutive) for each of the six counts of worthless checks, for an effective sentence of 13 years, 11 months, and 27 days. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by revoking her alternative sentences and by imposing lengthier, consecutive sentences. The judgments are affirmed.

The appellant, Kelly A. Hancock appeals as a matter of right from her conviction for driving under the influence. She contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt. After a review of the evidence we affirm the conviction pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.