APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant entered a "best interest" guilty plea to arson, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a split confinement sentence of four years, with one year to be served in the Bledsoe County jail and the remainder to be served on probation. The Defendant now challenges the propriety of the sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Ronald Paxton, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a twenty-five year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Robert Clark, was convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced to twenty-four years to be served at 100% as a violent offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the definitions of the mental states pertaining to second degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant of DUI and imposed a $500 fine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the penal farm, which was suspended after service of forty-eight hours. The trial court further ordered the Defendant to perform fifty days of community service, imposed a fine of $510, revoked his license for a year, and required him to attend DUI school. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Ricky Lamont Brigman, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of three counts of rape of a child, one count of attempted rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, three counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, one count of sexual battery, one count of attempted sexual battery, and one count of sexual exploitation involving six minor male victims. For these convictions, he received an effective sentence of ninety-one years. On appeal, Brigman challenges both his convictions and sentences upon the following grounds: (1) with respect to certain convictions, a material variance exists between the indictments and the convicting evidence; (2) the "cancellation" rule requires dismissal of his conviction for sexual battery; (3) the trial court provided improper jury instructions with regard to the "cancellation" rule and the requisite mental states; (4) the sentences are excessive due to the trial court's failure to apply mitigating factors at sentencing; and (5) the improper imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, James Edward Peden, appeals his Lincoln County Circuit Court jury conviction of failure to appear, a Class E felony. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court's ruling that allowed evidence of certain prior convictions to impeach his testimony. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The Appellant, David S. Eads, pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a condition of the plea agreement, Eads reserved the right to appeal, as a certified question of law, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). On appeal, he asserts that the search warrant was invalid because: (1) the facts alleged in the affidavit supporting the search warrant were insufficient to support a finding of probable cause, and (2) the warrant was based on information obtained from an illegal warrantless search by a confidential informant. Finding that the issues presented are without merit, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.

The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective term of six years with 120 days incarceration followed by probation as a result of the defendant's guilty pleas to three counts of vandalism over $10,000, one count of vandalism over $1,000, one count of vandalism over $500, and one count of vandalism under $500. In this appeal, the defendant argues: (1) his sentence is excessive; (2) the trial court erred in denying him full probation; and (3) the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. We remand for correction of clerical errors in some of the judgments but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.