APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Early H. Miles, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post- conviction relief or in the alternative 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, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations for post-conviction purposes. The petition was not filed in the proper court for habeas corpus purposes, and the petitioner did not give any reason in the petition for not applying to the nearest court as required by law. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of the first degree premeditated murder of Junecus Bolden. The appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises issues regarding the admission of certain testimony and the propriety of the State’s rebuttal closing argument. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner has appealed the dismissal of her 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.

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, 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 affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendants, who are brother and sister, were each convicted by a Cocke County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced by the trial court to serve 11 months, 29 days on supervised probation. Both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented from which a rational trier of fact could reasonably find both defendants guilty of assault. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Raymond Sunil Tate, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the action of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. The petition does not establish either an expired sentence or a void judgment. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Gibson County jury convicted Patricia White of theft of property valued over $10,000, a Class C felony; the trial court sentenced her to a term of four years, suspended, and fifteen years’ probation. The same jury also convicted Patricia White’s husband, Craig White, of facilitation of theft of property valued over $10,000; the trial court sentenced him to a term of two years suspended, and two years’ probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court held the couple jointly liable for $124,000 in restitution. On appeal the defendants contend that the trial evidence is insufficient to support their convictions. They also contest the amount of restitution they have been ordered to pay. After an exhaustive review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Patricia White’s conviction, but we are unable to reach the same conclusion for Craig White’s facilitation conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Patricia White’s conviction; the conviction of Craig White is reversed, and the charge is dismissed. Finding that the trial court made inadequate findings in assessing restitution, we further remand that issue for determination based on the required statutory findings. Finally, we take notice that based on three statutory enhancement factors (none of which involved prior criminal history), the trial court set the length of Patricia White’s sentence at one year above the presumptive minimum sentence of three years; pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify her sentence to three years but leave undisturbed the length and terms of her probation.

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, 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 affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The majority concludes that modification of the defendant, Patricia White’s, sentence is
required in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). For the following reasons, I must respectfully dissent.

The trial court granted the husband a divorce on the ground of the wife’s adultery and made various rulings regarding the parenting arrangement for the parties’ one year old son, child support, property division, and award of attorney’s fees. The parties have appealed most of the those rulings. Although we affirm the equal sharing of residential placement, we find the six month alternating schedule is not in this child’s best interests. We also find other parts of the plan must be vacated in view of recent holdings by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Therefore, we vacate the parenting plan and remand for entry of a new permanent parenting plan addressing the residential schedule, the designation of primary residential parent, allocation of decision-making authority, and child support. In the interim, we reinstate the trial court’s pendente lite arrangement, as modified, and establish interim support. We affirm the division of property, modify the allocation of debt, and modify the award of attorney’s fees.
 

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, 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 affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a child support modification case. The child involved was born out of wedlock to the parties on June 13, 1996. Mother brought suit in the Juvenile court of Davidson County in July of 1996 seeking to establish paternity of the father and to establish child support. Both parties were represented by counsel, and on May 30, 1997, the juvenile court entered an Order of Compromise and Dismissal. The parties settled the case by Settlement Agreement under which Mr. Harris agreed to pay to Ms. Clark (now Gorrell) the sum of $20,000 cash for any and all claims against Mr. Harris through June 30 of 1998, including her child support claims as to the minor child. From June 13, 1998 forward, Mr. Harris agreed to pay $12,000 per year as child support together with medical insurance until the child reached age 18. On February 23, 2001, Mother filed a Petition to Modify the child support in order to bring it in compliance with Child Support Guidelines. The trial court held the Settlement Agreement to be void and set prospective child support but declined to either award retroactive child support or to order an upward deviation in child support because of failure of the father to visit the child. We affirm the ruling of the trial court that the Settlement Agreement is void, modify prospective child support, reverse the trial court on retroactive child support, deny an upward deviation as to retroactive support, but grant such deviation as to future support. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
 

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, 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 affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Ronnie W. Salmon, was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended but sixty days. Defendant does not appeal his sentence. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument were improper, and that the trial court erred in not granting Defendant a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Chancellor construed a will and granted plaintiff summary judgment. Defendants insist the will is ambiguous. On appeal, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Donzel A. Watson, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. 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. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Joe Bobby Yarbro, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for postc-onviction relief. 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. Because the petition for post-conviction relief is time-barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The Trial Court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the four year old child. On appeal, we
Affirm.
 

The petitioner, Anthony K. Goods, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The Petitioner, Leslie Lamont Coleman, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. 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. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Alfonzo Williams, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the post-conviction court erroneously found that his petition was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.