APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant entered pleas of guilt to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, and possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed concurrent Range I sentences of eight years, two years, and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. The defendant was required to serve one year in jail followed by seven years in community corrections. Later, the community corrections sentence was revoked and an eight-year sentence imposed. An appeal resulted in a remand by this court with directions to credit both jail time and the length of service within the program. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in the imposition of the resentence. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of judicial diversion contending that the court abused its discretion by not articulating specific reasons on the record for the denial. We agree with the defendant and remand for a new sentencing hearing in order for the trial court to place its reasoning upon the record.

A Hardin County jury convicted the defendant, Donald Franks, of rape of a child. The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirty-seven years as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight; and (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Sidney Joseph Ogle, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I standard offender to three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court denied the appellant's request for probation and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Sullivan County grand jury indicted Defendant Woodrow Gifford, Jr. for possession of over 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The Sullivan County grand jury indicted Defendant Carl Monk for possession of over 26 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following the trial court's denial of the Defendants Motions to Suppress evidence, the Defendants both pled nolo contendere to possession with intent to sell drugs, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-417, and possession of drug paraphernalia, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-425. Both Defendants reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law regarding the trial court's denial of their Motions to Suppress. Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, we affirm.

The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, arguing that his due process rights were violated because (1) the trial court allowed the State to amend the revocation petition to include as additional grounds his subsequent convictions for theft and criminal impersonation, without providing him prior written notice; and (2) the trial court failed to issue adequate findings of fact in support of its decision. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a conviction for DUI, third offense, after entering a guilty plea, Defendant James H. Thompson appeals, asserting that he has presented a certified question of law for review. Because we conclude that the question of law, even if properly reserved at the guilty plea hearing, is not dispositive of the case, we dismiss the appeal.

The defendant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to a Class B felony and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to ten years, two years above the presumptive minimum sentence in the range. Subsequently, the defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the trial court violated the requirements of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act by failing to state enhancement factors to support the increase in his sentence from the presumptive minimum eight-year sentence. The trial court dismissed the motion, and the defendant appealed to this court. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence.