APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Carlos Burris, was convicted by a Madison County jury of misdemeanor possession of cocaine. On appeal, Burris argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.  After review, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

The defendant appeals from his jury convictions of criminal trespass (Class C misdemeanor), assault (Class A misdemeanor), aggravated burglary (Class C felony), aggravated assault (Class C felony), and theft (Class A misdemeanor). The defendant received an effective sentence of five and one-half years incarceration plus two jail terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days. Issues presented on appeal are the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the consolidation of offenses from two indictments involving separate dates with a single victim. After review, we have concluded that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the defendant waived the severance of the offenses issue. The judgments from the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, Michael Williams, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to have him undergo a mental evaluation prior to trial. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden that: (1) his counsel was deficient in her performance, and (2) he was prejudiced in his claim of ineffective assistance. We affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The defendant, Antonio George, was convicted of carjacking, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in excusing a prospective juror who had a pending criminal case; (3) the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of the lead investigating officer; (4) the trial court erred in failing to charge the lesser-included offenses of theft and robbery; and (5) the trial court erred by not giving a curative jury instruction regarding a comment made by the prosecutor. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge against the defendant.

The appellant, Tyree Robinson, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The appellant received a total effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus twenty years. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that Brown, Morris, and Courtney Perry were accomplices as a matter of law; the trial court abused its discretion in allowing hearsay statements; and the trial court erred in responding to a jury question. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

The Petitioner, Harvey S. Burns, ¹ pled guilty to selling less than one-half gram of cocaine. At the guilty plea hearing, the Petitioner accepted a sentence of thirteen years as a Range III, persistent offender. The Petitioner timely filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, and after being appointed counsel, filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Marco Hughlett, was indicted under alternative theories, charging Defendant in count one with committing aggravated robbery by violence, and in count two, with committing aggravated robbery by placing the victim in fear. The jury convicted Defendant under both counts.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to eleven years for each conviction. The trial court merged Defendant’s conviction of aggravated robbery in count two with his conviction of aggravated robbery in count one. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Proceeding pro se, the petitioner, Miko T. Burl, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding. On appeal, the petitioner contends the court erred by dismissing his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing and claims he is entitled to relief based upon the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Following our review, we dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Tara L. Beffrey, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor, for which she received an eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence; violation of the implied consent law, a Class A misdemeanor, for which she received a five-day consecutive sentence; and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor, for which she received a six-month concurrent sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the convicting evidence was insufficient to prove DUI and (2) the vehicle stop that led to her arrest was unconstitutional. We conclude no error exists, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Andre L. Mayfield, appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer, TDY Industries Inc., asserts that the trial court erred in awarding the employee 60% permanent partial disability to the right upper extremity and 40% permanent partial disability to the left upper extremity for injuries he incurred during the course of his employment. We conclude that the evidence presented does not preponderate against the findings of the trial judge, and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Larry Dickerson, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder and resulting life sentence. The trial court dismissed his petition. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles A. Walker, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, based on acts he committed against his stepdaughter, who was less than thirteen years old when the offenses occurred. He was sentenced by the trial court to twenty years for each of the rape convictions and to eight years for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, with the rape sentences to be served concurrently to each other and the aggravated sexual battery sentence to be served consecutively to the rape sentences, for an effective sentence of twenty-eight years at 100% in the Department of Correction. The defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether the State sufficiently proved the date of two of the offenses as set out in the bill of particulars and the verdict forms submitted to the jury; (3) whether the trial court committed reversible error by not issuing unanimity and election of offenses jury instructions; and (4) whether the totality of alleged evidentiary ruling errors warrants a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the rape convictions but reverse and remand for a new trial on the aggravated sexual battery offense. Additionally, we remand for entry of corrected judgments on the rape convictions to reflect that the defendant was sentenced to twenty years, rather than twenty-two, in each count.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Michael Small, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge ordered the Defendant to proceed pro se because he allegedly physically attacked his appointed trial counsel. The trial court merged the two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that (1) his failure to file a motion for new trial should not constitute waiver of trial errors on appeal because he was wrongfully denied his right to counsel, (2) the trial court erred in allowing the appointed counsel to represent him during trial because the attorney-client relationship became “adversarial,” (3) the trial court violated his right to counsel by requiring him to proceed pro se post-trial, and (4) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated robbery.  We conclude that the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact to permit our review of whether the Defendant was properly required to proceed pro se. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for further factual determinations regarding the alleged attack on the Defendant’s trial counsel and any other pertinent information on the issue of whether the Defendant implicitly waived or forfeited his right to counsel.

The Appellant, Louis Steele, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. Steele pled guilty to misdemeanor vandalism, harassment, and three counts of driving under the influence (DUI). On appeal, Steele contends that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in: (1) failing to inform him of the consequences of his pleas, specifically that three DUI convictions automatically qualified him as a Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender; (2) failing to seek court-ordered medical treatment while he was in jail or to pursue his release on bail; and (3) failing to properly conduct a pretrial investigation.  Following review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

We granted permission to appeal in this habeas corpus case to consider the legality of a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. The agreed sentence exceeds the maximum available term in the offender Range but does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the offense. For the reasons explained herein, we conclude that the plea-bargained sentence is legal. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

In this action for damages to personal property caused by an allegedly defective storage container, the Trial Court granted Judgment for plaintiffs. We affirm.

This case involves allegations of employer discrimination by an African-American male employee.  He claimed that he experienced race and gender discrimination because he was treated differently than his co-workers who were African-American females and a white male.  He also claimed to have been retaliated against after he filed various grievances and complaints against his employer, and he alleged outrageous conduct on the part of his employer and his supervisor, individually.  The trial court dismissed the case, and for the following reasons, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Dwayne E. Anderson, appeals from the order of the trial court summarily dismissing his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The trial court dismissed the petition because it determined that the petition did not state valid grounds for habeas corpus relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Leo H. Odom, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Odom was indicted for first degree murder and subsequently pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to second degree murder, receiving an agreed sentence of thirty years with service of 100% as a violent offender. He is currently an inmate at Northwest Correctional Complex at Tiptonville. On appeal, Odom argues that his 1997 murder conviction and resulting thirty-year sentence are void because his sentence is “erroneous as being contrary to the express provisions of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act.” After review, we affirm the judgment of the Lake County Circuit Court.

Petitioner, Andre L. Mayfield, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jorge Herrera, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This matter is before this court following the Petitioner Heck Van Tran’s motion to reopen his postconviction petition for the limited purpose of determining whether the Petitioner is mentally retarded and thus ineligible for the death penalty. The lower court entered an order denying relief. The Petitioner appeals asserting that the proof established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is mentally retarded renders his sentence of death unconstitutional. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the lower court’s denial of relief.

The appellant, William Arthur Shelton aka John Shelton, was convicted by a jury in the Bradley County Criminal Court of three counts of false imprisonment, two counts of vandalism, and one count of premeditated first degree murder. He received a total effective sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion for severance of the murder counts from the remaining counts, the trial court’s exclusion of a witness’s complete statement to police, and the sufficiency of the evidence. From our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.