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.

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 was convicted of second offense driving under the influence and violation of the open container law. The trial court sentenced her to eleven months, twenty-nine days incarceration for the DUI conviction, suspended after service of ninety days, and to thirty days incarceration, suspended, for violation of the open container law. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her convictions. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury’s findings of guilt and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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.

The defendant, Bobby Gene Tucker, appeals from the revocation of his probation received for his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) after having served fifteen days in confinement. He contends (1) that the revocation warrant and affidavit are void, thereby voiding his probation revocation and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to serve the maximum term of eleven months, twenty-nine days with credit for time served. We affirm the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief on his second degree murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he had effective assistance of trial counsel. Following his entry of a plea of guilty to second degree murder, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to thoroughly investigate and prepare his case, and that were it not for the deficiencies in counsel's representation, he would not have entered his plea of guilty. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to offer any proof to support his allegations. After a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Marshall County grand jury indicted the petitioner on two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of theft, and one count of evading arrest. On October 29, 1997, the petitioner entered an open plea of guilt, reserving the determination of the length and manner of sentencing for the trial court.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total of thirty-four years as a Range III persistent offender. In making its sentencing determination, the trial court ran several of the offenses consecutively. On direct appeal, the petitioner challenged his sentence as excessive.  State v. Hayes, No. 01C01-9804-CC-00176, 1999 WL 126650 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, March 11, 1999). Finding that the record supported the trial court’s sentence determination, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id. at *2. The petitioner then unsuccessfully applied for
permission to appeal the trial court’s sentence determination to the Tennessee Supreme Court.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court judge who imposed his sentence should have recused himself due to his personal knowledge of the facts of and victims in the case. The court
appointed counsel for the petitioner, and the petitioner’s newly appointed counsel then filed an amendment to the earlier petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by both trial and appellate counsel. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition and dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition, alleging that he received both ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for recusal. After the reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find these issues to be without merit and therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.