APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Davidson County jury convicted the petitioner of two counts of child rape. For each of these offenses, he received a sentence of eighteen years, and the trial court ordered the sentences to be run consecutively. On direct appeal this Court modified the petitioner's sentences to sixteen and one half years each, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty-three years, but otherwise found the petitioner's claims merited no relief. Subsequently the petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Determining that the petitioner had raised a colorable claim, the trial court appointed counsel to represent him and later conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court filed an opinion denying the petition. From this denial the petitioner brings the instant appeal alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by inadequately advising the petitioner of the potential sentence he could receive should he elect to go to trial. However, following our review of the record, we find that the trial court correctly denied the petition, and we, therefore, affirm the lower court's decision.

This is a state appeal from the suppression of evidence. The defendant was indicted for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident. The defendant filed a motion to suppress which the trial court granted. In this appeal, the state alleges that the trial court erroneously concluded the defendant was unlawfully arrested, or, in the alternative, the order of suppression was overbroad. Upon review of the record, we modify the order of suppression to allow evidence gathered prior to the unlawful arrest. We remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was violated by his multiple sentences. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that the judgments of conviction were facially valid. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition.

The defendant contends that the State should be barred from revoking his Community Corrections sentence because no detainer was placed on him while he served a six-year prison sentence in North Carolina while his revocation warrant was pending in Tennessee and the State knew of his location. We conclude that the State was under no obligation to file a detainer against the defendant, and that the State was not time barred from proceeding with the Community Corrections revocation after the defendant's return to this state. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals his conviction of the sale of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years, three months in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and imposed a $2000 fine. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and that his sentence is excessive and contrary to law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I must dissent from the holding of the majority opinion in this case for the following reasons:

The defendant, Noah J. Love, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct his sentence. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court properly denied relief. Because the trial court had no jurisdiction to amend the sentence four years after the defendant had been transferred to the Department of Correction, the judgment is reversed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioners in the instant case each pled guilty to one count of murder in the perpetration of a robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202, one count of especially aggravated robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-403, and one count of aggravated assault under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102. The Petitioners were sentenced to concurrent sentences of life, twenty-five years, and six years, respectively. On April 20, 1995, the Petitioners filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Special Judge Bobby Capers was appointed to hear the post-conviction petition. The trial court heard the Petitioners' petition between August 9, 1999 and August 19, 1999, and granted post-conviction relief to Petitioners Smith and Versie. On December 3, 1999, the State filed a notice of appeal, challenging the post-conviction court's findings that neither of the Petitioners received effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court was correct in granting post-conviction relief to the Petitioners. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and two counts of theft over one thousand dollars, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of three years incarceration in the local workhouse. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant entered a best interest plea of guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and was sentenced to four years on community corrections. The plea attempted to reserve a certified question of law relating to the suppression of evidence. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to address the certified question of law. The appeal is dismissed.

Upon his guilty plea, the Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent ten year sentences to be served on community corrections. Several months into service of his sentences, the Defendant was arrested and his community corrections sentences were revoked. The trial court subsequently resentenced the Defendant to two consecutive ten year sentences. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court was without authority to impose consecutive sentences and that consecutive sentences are improper. We affirm the trial court's judgment.