APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Kenneth Gaines, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Because we discern no error in the post-conviction court’s proceedings and because the record supports that court’s determinations, we affirm.

The Defendant, Michael Nash, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that he should have been sentenced as a Range I, standard offender. We affirm the Defendant’s conviction. We reverse the order of the trial court sentencing the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender. We remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer appeals, arguing that the trial court should have granted the employer’s Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment. The trial court considered testimony that a legal assistant was given incorrect information by the clerk’s office but held that the employer failed to show grounds for excusable neglect. The Panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Following his plea of guilty to aggravated burglary, the petitioner was sentenced to twelve years. After serving a period of time, the length of which is unclear from the record, he was paroled and, on February 19, 1999, was convicted in Alabama for trafficking cocaine. Apparently, a parole violation warrant was issued on January 25, 1999, for his Tennessee sentence, as to which he was declared on the same day to be delinquent. Presumably because the petitioner was incarcerated in Alabama, the warrant was not served on him until March 1, 2004. His parole was revoked on April 1, 2004, following a hearing that same day. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 29, 2004, seeking relief because, by his analysis, his sentence had expired and the revocation hearing had not been timely. The trial court dismissed the petition and, following our review, we affirm the dismissal.

The appellant, Jeremy P. Smith, pled guilty in the Dickson County Circuit Court to arson and received a sentence of five years. The trial court granted the appellant community corrections. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the appellant's community corrections and ordered the appellant to serve one year in confinement before again being released into community corrections. On appeal, the appellant contests the revocation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant, Darryl Eugene Watts, pled guilty to rape, furnishing alcohol to a minor, and exposing a minor to pornography. He was sentenced to an effective eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Phillip W. Dailey, appeals the sentencing decision of the Blount County Circuit Court, which resulted in the imposition of an effective three-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Dailey challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jeffrey Wayne Haithcote, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Ronald L. Davis, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, alleging various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel as well as a violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause. Upon review of the claim under the Confrontation Clause, we conclude that counsel was not ineffective and that the statement did not prejudice the petitioner. We further conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court's finding that counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.

In this consolidated appeal, the petitioners challenge the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that their respective trial counsel were ineffective in failing to advise them of authority that indicated that their conduct fell outside the scope of the statute. On appeal, the State concedes that the petitioners received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following thorough review, we agree. Therefore, we reverse the denial of post-conviction relief, set aside the judgments, and remand the matter to the trial court.

The Appellant, David B. Walker, appeals the sentencing decision of the Cocke County Circuit Court. Walker pled guilty to reckless vehicular homicide, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to three years in the county jail. On appeal, Walker argues that the trial court should have imposed an alternative sentence. After review of the record, we find that the State has failed to rebut the presumption of Walker's entitlement to an alternative sentence. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for the imposition of an appropriate alternative sentence.

The appellant, Billy Mac Montgomery, pled guilty in the Tipton County Circuit Court to driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, to be suspended after serving forty-eight hours, and imposed a three hundred fifty dollar fine. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The State contends that the question presented is not dispositive and, therefore, that this court is without jurisdiction over the appeal. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Allen D. Baldwin, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and robbery, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the robbery conviction into the aggravated robbery conviction and sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred by ruling that the State could impeach him with his prior convictions for robbery and theft if he chose to testify.  Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries received when he was arrested by officers of the Nashville Metropolitan Police. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the actions of the officers constituted an assault and battery, and further argues that the government is vicariously liable through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the government after finding that a stand alone allegation of respondeat superior was insufficient to sustain a claim under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for damages resulting from intentional torts. Rather, the court held that Plaintiff needed to plead a separate and distinct claim of negligence on the part of the Metropolitan Government. Plaintiff has appealed the ruling of the trial court. Because we find that the trial court correctly found that the GTLA requires a plaintiff to assert separate claims of negligence against governmental entities in cases arising from intentional torts, we affirm.

Appellant is an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant filed suit against the Warden of the West Tennessee State Penitentiary on grounds of retaliation and violation of inmate’s civil rights arising from inmate’s reclassification and transfer. The trial court granted Warden’s Tenn. R. App. P. 12.02 Motion to Dismiss. Inmate appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Scotty Dewayne Robinson, pleaded guilty to theft of an amount less than $10,000.  Pursuant to his plea agreement, the petitioner received a three-year incarcerative sentence as a Range I offender to be served consecutively to the federal sentence he was currently serving. The petitioner filed an untimely appeal, and this court accordingly dismissed the appeal. State v. Scotty Dewayne Robinson, No. E2001-02342-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, May 20, 2002). The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that as a result, his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner brings the instant appeal challenging that denial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Bill Vaughn Halton, pled guilty to three counts of sexual battery and to one count of sexual assault. The Defendant filed a petition to suspend fees and court costs. After a hearing, the trial court waived the Defendant's counseling and probation fees, but concluded that it had no authority to waive the Defendant's court costs. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to waive court costs. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we remand this case to the trial court to consider whether or not the Defendant's court costs should be waived.

The trial court denied Father's petition to decrease child support upon finding Father was voluntarily underemployed. It also determined Father's previous payments of child support in excess of the court ordered amount were a gift and refused to credit them to Father's subsequent arrearage. Father appeals. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a Circuit Court determination, in a de novo appeal from juvenile court, that a juvenile was delinquent on the basis of a sale of marijuana to another juvenile. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence presented was insufficient for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree, and we reverse the trial court.

The petitioner, Gerald Buchanan, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for first degree murder and resulting sentence of life imprisonment. He claims his judgment of conviction is void because it classifies his release eligibility status as thirty percent in violation of our statutory sentencing scheme. We affirm the trial court.

The appellant, Ken Childress, was convicted by a jury of attempted first degree murder and aggravated criminal trespass. The trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of twenty-five (25) years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence as improper in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542, U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Because the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and the Tennessee Supreme Court has determined that Blakely has no effect in Tennessee, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Brian L. Woods, appeals the Dyer County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Woods argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This is an action to quiet title filed by the grantor against an assignee of the grantees relative to an installment land contract. Remote grantees of the grantor were joined as third party defendants by the original defendant/assignee relative to portions of the land involved in the installment land contract and held by the third party defendants under deeds from the grantor. The trial judge granted summary judgment to the grantor and against the assignee of the grantees in the installment land contract. He further granted summary judgment to the remote grantees of the grantor in the third-party action by the assignee against them. The assignee appeals, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Darryl J. Leinart, II, was indicted on one (1) count of possession of marijuana and one (1) count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him contending that the warrantless search of his residence was illegal. The trial court granted the motion to suppress and the State filed this appeal. We find the State failed to carry its burden in the trial court of proving that the warrantless search of the defendant's residence was valid. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.