APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Marvin Matthews, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petition is barred by the statute of limitations, among other reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and vehicular assault. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether both convictions can stand without violating his right to be protected against double jeopardy. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support convictions for DUI and vehicular assault, but that both convictions cannot stand without violating principles of double jeopardy. The conviction for DUI is, therefore, vacated. The remaining conviction for vehicular assault and the sentence imposed by the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant, Marvin D. Brown, a/k/a/ Melvin Leroy Taylor, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of theft of property, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a career offender to twelve years and ordered that it be served consecutive to a previously imposed sentence, for which parole had been revoked. In this appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him for theft but, rather, the proof supported a conviction of joyriding, a Class A misdemeanor. Based upon applicable law and a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Brian Russell Webb, was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), reckless driving, violation of the implied consent law, speeding, evading arrest, theft of property valued at more than $10,000 and vandalism. He pled guilty to the DUI, and upon motion of the State, the trial court dismissed the charges for reckless driving and violation of the implied consent law. The Defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion for the remaining charges, which the prosecutor subsequently denied. The Defendant then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the prosecutor's denial of his application for diversion. After a hearing, the trial court found that the State had abused its discretion and ordered the Defendant placed on pretrial diversion. In this appeal, pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9, the State contends the trial court erred in finding that the prosecutor abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant was indicted for aggravated sexual battery for engaging in sexual contact with a ten-year-old girl with Down's Syndrome. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, based on the loss of the tape recording of his interview with a Department of Children's Services caseworker and a police officer, and a motion to suppress his one paragraph statement of admission, consisting of the officer's summary of the interview. Following the trial court's denial of the motions, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, reserving as a certified question of law, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the loss of the tape recording of the interview. Arguing that the statement of admission is subject to misinterpretation when taken out of the context of the entire interview, the defendant contends that his right to a fair trial was compromised by the loss or destruction of the tape recording. After a thorough review of the record and of applicable law, we conclude that the loss of the tape recording did not unfairly prejudice the defendant's case. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction of attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery.

The defendant, Christopher Steven Nunley, was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of 11 months and 29 days at 75%. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, Joseph M. Stone, was indicted on six counts of burglary, three Class D felony thefts, two Class E felony thefts, and two misdemeanor thefts. After the defendant entered pleas of guilt to six counts of burglary and one Class E felony theft, the trial court imposed Range III sentences of 10 years on each burglary and five years on the theft. Because two of the sentences for burglary were ordered to be served consecutively, the effective sentence is 20 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court had no authority to impose consecutive sentencing. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals pro se the summary denial of his third petition for post-conviction relief arising out of his 1982 conviction for first degree murder. He asserts that his trial counsel and previous post-conviction counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in that they did not raise the issue of the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to the defense of alibi. We conclude this petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of this petition.