APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. He argues: (1) due process required the post-conviction court to hear his petition because of his attorney’s inaction even though it was filed outside the statute of limitations; and, regardless, (2) his convictions should be set aside because they are based on void indictments. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Oscar C. Wells, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of first degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The appellant received a total effective sentence of life plus ten years. On appeal, the appellant challenges his arrest without a warrant and the trial court’s failure to suppress the appellant’s statement which was taken after his arrest. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Elbert M. Marable, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Rutherford County Circuit Court. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Marable pled guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to three years in the Department of Correction as a Range I offender. On appeal, Marable presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether his plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered and (2) whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After consideration of the entire record, we conclude that Marable's plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered. Accordingly, his conviction for aggravated assault is vacated and this case is remanded to the trial court.

A jury found the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide. The trial court sentenced her as a mitigated offender to .9 years of unsupervised probation. The defendant appeals her conviction and alleges that the trial court erroneously allowed the improper admission of evidence regarding child restraint laws and insufficient evidence to support a conviction. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Lauderdale County jury convicted the Defendant, Reginald Derell Baldon, of three counts of burglary, three counts of vandalism over $1,000, one count of theft over $1,000, one count of vandalism over $500, and four counts of misdemeanor theft stemming from three separate break-ins. He was sentenced to an effective term of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the State failed to provide proper discovery pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; (3) the trial court erred in denying a motion for mistrial due to the prosecutor’s reference to the Defendant’s failure to testify; and (4) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of burglary. We also address whether lost evidence deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. We modify the judgment on one of the vandalism convictions to properly reflect the jury’s verdict, although this modification does not change the effective sentence of twenty years. Otherwise, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant was convicted in general sessions court of Driving While Under the Influence and “Refusal to Submit.” He appealed his convictions and sentences to the Criminal Court for Shelby County. The Defendant failed to appear for his initial court hearing in criminal court, and a capias was issued for his arrest. The Defendant was arrested on the capias, posted bond, and subsequently appeared one hour late for a hearing in criminal court. The criminal court dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to general sessions court for the execution of the original judgments. This appeal ensued, in which the Defendant argues (and the State concedes) that the criminal court erred by dismissing the appeal and remanding the case to general sessions court. We agree and reverse the judgment of the criminal court.

The Defendant, Guadalupe Steven Mendez, was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to terms of twenty-four years for the aggravated rape and ten years for the sexual exploitation. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to a prior sentence. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the aggravated rape conviction, and further complains that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Wade Smith, III, was convicted by a Perry County jury of second degree murder for the shooting death of his father. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to seventeen years of incarceration. The defendant now appeals contending that: (1) he was deprived of the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence; (2) the trial court erred in not giving a jury instruction regarding the relevance of the Defendant's intoxication to negate his culpable mental state; and (3) the evidence presented is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ronald Jerome Butler, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Davidson County Criminal Court, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner contests this ruling on appeal. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Donald Mitchell Green, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to aggravated robbery, failure to appear, and theft. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Barry L. Armistead appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's revocation of his probationary sentences. He claims that the lower court erred in revoking probation because the state failed to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Because we disagree, we affirm the lower court's judgment.