APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Terry Proffitt appeals the Sevier County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Proffitt claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during the proceedings in which he was convicted of first degree murder for the death of his ex-wife and that improper jury instructions were given during those proceedings. Because the lower court properly found that the petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving these claims by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.

An Anderson County grand jury indicted the defendant and two co-defendants on a single count of aggravated robbery. While one co-defendant pled guilty to a reduced offense, the defendant and remaining co-defendant elected a jury trial. Following the close of proof, the trial court jury found these two individuals guilty as charged. For this offense the lower court sentenced the defendant to ten years as a standard offender. Thereafter the defendant unsuccessfully pursued a new trial motion. In this appeal the defendant continues to assert that his conviction cannot be upheld because it is based on the uncorroborated testimony of a co-defendant.

In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County the Plaintiff/Appellant, Peggy Pistole, argues that the trial court erred in excluding witness testimony upon grounds that their identity was not disclosed in Ms. Pistole's response to interrogatories. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.

The petitioner, Wheatley Graham, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction
court is affirmed.

The defendant appeals his convictions for first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery on the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. We conclude that the evidence abundantly supported the convictions and affirm the same.

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the lower court's denial of coram nobis relief. After review of the record, we conclude that the State's motion is well-taken and the trial court's order denying Petitioner coram nobis relief is affirmed.

Following a bench trial, the defendant, Michael Renee Lee, was convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft over $1000, a Class D felony, and was sentenced as a career offender to fifteen years and twelve years, respectively. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of twenty-seven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, David William Smith, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his five convictions for attempted second degree murder and resulting effective thirty-two-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to (1) cross-examine state witnesses on testimony conflicting with their prior testimony, (2) advise him that he could receive consecutive sentences, and (3) call the necessary witnesses. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

A Scott County jury convicted the Defendant, Gerald L. "Pete" Shirley, of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated sexual battery, five counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder, and another count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of sixty years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends the following: (1) the trial court erred in permitting the jury to take the "bill of particulars" into the jury room during deliberations; (2) the Defendant's convictions for aggravated rape by digital penetration and aggravated rape by oral sex violate the principles of double jeopardy and duplicity of offenses; (3) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss or merge the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction into one of the aggravated rape convictions; (4) the trial court erred in refusing to permit the jury to review a copy of the statement that the victim gave to a police officer; (5) the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser-included offense of false imprisonment; (6) insufficient evidence exists to support the convictions; and (7) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to an effective sixty-year sentence. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that aggravated assault was a lesser included-offense of attempted second degree murder. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant's conviction of aggravated assault in count eleven of the indictment and modify his sentence to an aggregate fifty years in prison. We affirm the Defendant's remaining convictions.

The petitioners, Timothy Bickers, Thomas Carter, and Gregory Hedges, appeal the post-conviction court’s dismissal of their joint pro se petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioners contend: (1) due process mandates the statute of limitations be tolled; and (2) the post-conviction court erred in denying their motion for recusal. We affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Kendrick D. Rivers, was convicted of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell and/or deliver, evading arrest, resisting arrest, and criminal trespass. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine; (2) that one of the jurors had a bias against him; and (3) that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by knowingly using false testimony.1 Finding no error in the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves the lower court's award of a garnishment judgment against Accuride Corporation, as well as its subsequent denial of Accuride's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the lower court and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal is the second in a 24 year long dispute over a proposed raceway in Lincoln County. After hearing additional proof as this Court required in West v. Luna, No. 01A01-9707-CH-00281, 1998 WL 467106 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998), the trial court entered a new injunction prohibiting the defendant Luna from operating a race track on Old Boonshill Road in Lincoln County. In this appeal, Mr. Luna challenges the trial court's injunction as noncompliant with our decision in the first appeal, and in imposing a noise limitation effectively making the race track a nuisance per se. We affirm the trial court.

Defendant, Glen Ray Goodrum, was found guilty of driving a motor vehicle after having been declared an habitual motor vehicle offender, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-616(a), following a jury trial in the Carroll County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced him to serve two years in the Department of Correction, and ordered that he serve a community-based alternative in Community Corrections following one year of confinement. The sentence was also ordered to be served consecutively to another sentence in an unrelated case. Defendant has listed numerous issued for review, but has only briefed a portion of the issues. He also failed to timely file his motion for new trial. In addition, the transcript of the sentencing hearing is not included in the record. This court's review is thus limited to Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and a review of the judgment regarding sentencing. After review, we affirm Defendant's conviction, but remand to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment.

I concur in the conclusion of the majority that Holton’s convictions should be affirmed. As to the sentence of death, however, I continue to adhere to my views expressed in a long line of dissents beginning with State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, 920-25 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting), and most recently elaborated on in State v. Davidson, ___  S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2003) (Birch, J., dissenting), that the  comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and  disproportionate imposition of the death penalty. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) (1995 Supp.). I have repeatedly expressed my  displeasure with the current protocol since the time of its adoption in State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). I believe there are three basic problems with the current proportionality analysis: (1) the proportionality test is overbroad,2 (2) the pool ofcases used for comparison is inadequate³ and (3) review is too subjective^4.  I have previously discussed, in depth, my perception that these flaws undermine the  reliability of the current proportionality protocol. See, e.g., Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 793-800 (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting). Accordingly, I  respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion affirming the imposition of the death penalty in this case.

The defendant, Daryl Keith Holton, was convicted of four counts of first degree premeditated murder. The jury imposed a sentence of death on each conviction, finding that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances2 and that the aggravating circumstances so proven outweighed any and all mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant appealed, challenging both his convictions and sentences. After fully considering the defendant’s claims, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the sentences. The case was then docketed in this Court, briefs were filed, and after considering the briefs and the record, this Court entered an Order requesting that the parties address certain issues at oral argument, including the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the constitutionality of the statutory insanity defense, the constitutionality of Tennessee’s capital sentencing scheme in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and the propriety of the death sentences in light of the mandatory review required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(A)-(D) (1997). After carefully and fully considering the issues in light of the record and the relevant authority, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(1); Judgments of the Trial Court and Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed
 

The defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery. He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress based on an unlawful stop and arrest. We conclude that the issue has been waived by the defendant’s failure to include it in his motion for a new trial. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, who pled guilty to one count of first degree murder and one count of second degree murder, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the trial court should have granted him relief based on newly discovered evidence which allegedly showed that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest at the time he entered his pleas of guilty. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the petition.

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus 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 Petitioner filed his petition in the wrong venue without providing a sufficient reason for not applying in the proper court, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable ground for reopening his petition. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, William Henry Vaughan, IV, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated arson. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and to twenty-five years for the arson, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant makes the following claims: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (3) the sequestered jury was separated; (4) the trial court erred by admitting a police officer's written report in its entirety; (5) he was deprived of his fundamental constitutional right to testify; (6) the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions; and (7) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Because we find that the Defendant was deprived of his fundamental constitutional right to testify, and because the State has failed to demonstrate that the deprivation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we vacate the Defendant's convictions and remand this matter for a new trial.