APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Eddie Hatchett, of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient because the state failed to negate his claim of self-defense. We affirm the trial court.

This is a direct appeal of the sentence imposed for an aggravated sexual battery conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). He now challenges his
sentence, raising three issues: 1) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing who had not been sequestered during prior testimony, 2) the trial court erred in applying one enhancement factor because it was also an element of the offense, and 3) the sentence was improperly enhanced in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Johnson County Circuit Court of multiple offenses, and he received a total effective sentence of twenty-two years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), renders his sentences void. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, which dismissal the petitioner appeals. The State 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. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Christopher A. Johnson, appeals from 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 denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed 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.

The Defendant, Jeffery Yates, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, career offender to thirty years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following challenges to his conviction: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court’s handling of the victim’s statement to the police; (3) the trial court’s admission of testimony regarding the Defendant’s involvement in a prostitution sting; (4) the trial court’s refusal to allow the Defendant to cross-examine his co-defendant about gang affiliation; (5) the trial court’s decision to allow the State to cross-examine the Defendant about prior convictions; and (6) the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft.  Finding no reversible error in the issues raised by the Defendant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Steven Andrew Tidwell, tried for aggravated burglary and theft of property between $500 and $1,000, was convicted of theft. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient, that the trial court erred by ruling that the state could cross-examine him with a prior burglary offense for which he had received judicial diversion, and that the sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Demarcus O'Shea Walker, pled guilty to various offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years, which it ordered the Defendant to serve on probation. While the Defendant was on probation, a probation violation report was filed and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered that the Defendant serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the Trial Court’s dismissal of this case. I have very little dispute, if any, with the law as set forth in the majority’s Opinion.  Likewise, I have no dispute with the majority’s statement that “[t]he determinative issue, as we perceive it, is whether the action was correctly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.” I, however, respectfully disagree with the majority’s application of the law to the facts of this case.

Alma Edna Smith ("Wife") sued Don Edward Smith ("Husband") for divorce. The Trial Court entered its Final Decree on July 20, 2004, finding and holding, in part, that both parties were entitled to a divorce and that Wife was to be awarded various items of personal property and the marital home with Husband to assume the indebtedness on this property. Husband received two other parcels of real property and certain items of personal property. Husband appeals the division of property. We modify the Trial Court's property division in this short duration marriage as it concerns the marital home, and we affirm as so modified.

This is an action to enforce a foreign judgment. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. Because the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants was proper, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified to clarify that the dismissal is without prejudice.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s order designating Mother the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and awarding Father less than equal parenting time. We affirm.

The Appellant, John A. Judkins, Jr., appeals the sentencing decision of the DeKalb County Criminal Court following termination of his judicial diversion. Judkins was indicted for aggravated burglary and two counts of theft of property and was granted judicial diversion and placed on supervised probation for a period of three years. Simultaneously with the entry of an order of judicial diversion, a negotiated plea agreement was presented and approved by the court to the indicted offenses which provided that Judkins would receive two three-year sentences and one eleven month and twenty-nine day suspended sentence for the three crimes. The agreement further provided for concurrent sentences to be served on "straight probation." A probation violation warrant was subsequently issued alleging that Judkins had committed additional offenses. Following termination of judicial diversion, in the absence of a sentencing hearing, Judkins was sentenced to three years confinement in the Department of Correction. Judkins argues on appeal that the trial court erred by not imposing the effective three-year sentence of "straight probation" as provided in the plea agreement. After review, we conclude that the Sentencing Act does not contemplate the coexistent grant of judicial diversion and service of a sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement as the two are inconsistent in purpose. Accordingly, the trial court's consideration of the terms of the plea agreement in the sentencing decision was error. The case is, therefore, remanded to the trial court for a sentencing hearing.

The appellant, James T. Brackins, pled guilty to robbery. As part of the plea agreement, the appellant received a six (6) year sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the appellant to serve the sentence in incarceration. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this interlocutory appeal, the State challenges the trial court's suppression of various statements allegedly made by the defendant, Michael D. Street. At the suppression hearing, the trial court excluded the statements based solely upon the fact that the State failed to comply with discovery Rule 16(a)(1)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring notice to the defendant. The trial court did not reach the constitutionality of the statements or otherwise recite its reasoning for admission of some statements and exclusion of others. In consequence, we remand this matter to the trial court for further consideration and additional findings.

The petitioner, Kelvin A. Lee, appeals pro se from the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court denying his petition for habeas corpus relief without a hearing. Specifically, he alleges that he was improperly transferred from juvenile to criminal court and that the trial court failed to comply with the terms of his plea agreement. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner has not presented any claims that justify habeas corpus relief. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of his petition.

A Giles County Jury convicted the Petitioner, Kendrick F. Love, of multiple felony cocaine offenses, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentences. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Donald Wayne Joiner, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court following revocation of probation. In July 2001 and July 2002, Joiner was convicted of multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses, resulting in an effective thirteen-year sentence in confinement with the Department of Correction. On October 28, 2003, while still an inmate in the Sullivan County Jail, Joiner escaped from confinement. At the time of Joiner's escape, in addition to the thirteen-year sentence, he was also under an effective eighteen-year suspended sentence, which was imposed consecutively to the thirteen-year sentence of confinement. Based upon Joiner's escape, his eighteen-year suspended sentence was revoked. On appeal, Joiner argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering confinement of the eighteen-year sentence instead of reinstating his probation. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a petition to establish visitation filed by the paternal grandparents on behalf of themselves and the father of the minor child. Following a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order wherein it found that the grandparents had failed to establish the statutory requirements for grandparent visitation. The juvenile court granted the father shared parenting time. However, the order provided that, if the father was unable to exercise his visitation for one full month due to his service in the military, the grandparents were granted the power to exercise the father’s visitation for the last full weekend of any such calendar month. From this order, the mother appeals. For reasons stated herein, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand the judgment of the juvenile court.

The defendant, Christopher T. Starnes, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of ten years with one year to be served in confinement and the balance to be served on intensive probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's revocation of his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal from convictions on a jury verdict of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony, and sale of a Schedule III controlled substance, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(c)(2) and (d)(1). The trial court determined the Defendant to be a
Range II, multiple offender and imposed nine- and seven-year sentences to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). The Defendant argues three issues on appeal: 1) the chain of custody was not sufficiently established to admit into evidence the drugs involved in the sales; 2) the two separate drug sale charges should have been merged into a single conviction; and 3) the sentences imposed were excessive due to the trial court’s failure to consider a mitigating factor. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves the denial of a beer permit. The beer board denied the appellant’s application for a beer permit because of the detrimental effect that beer sales would have on the health, safety, and morals of the community. The appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and the trial court upheld the beer board’s decision. The appellant appeals. We reverse.

In 2002, Wife filed a complaint for divorce in the circuit court. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce and incorporated the court’s permanent parenting plan. The trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife transitional alimony for three years, awarded the parents joint custody of their minor son, and ordered both parents to pay child support. The wife filed an appeal to this Court contesting the trial court’s decision regarding joint custody. The husband filed an appeal to this Court contesting the trial court’s decisions regarding alimony and child support. We reverse the trial court’s decisions regarding alimony, child custody, and child support, and we remand this case tot he trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is a direct appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for the cocaine conviction and three years for the marijuana conviction, to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). The Defendant argues two issues on appeal: 1) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty on both charges, and 2) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Mitchell D. Strong, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court following the revocation of his community corrections sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner challenges the denial of post-conviction relief, specifically contending that trial counsel was ineffective in guaranteeing that he would be sentenced to a boot camp program when he was statutorily ineligible for it. Upon review, we agree with the post-conviction court that counsel did not guarantee boot camp but stated that it was a possibility, based upon the judge’s recommendation that the petitioner be admitted to the program. Moreover, the petitioner’s responses during the plea colloquy indicated that the petitioner understood the charges he pled to and the nature and consequences of his pleas. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.