APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Bruce Marvin Vann, was convicted of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a six-year sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant presents five issues for review: (1) whether the indictment sufficiently described the offense of aggravated assault; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient; (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to act as thirteenth juror; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing prior convictions as impeachment evidence; and (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing to apply a mitigating circumstance. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Blount County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Anthony Pfahler, of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, violent offender to thirty-five years in the Department of Correction (DOC) for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years for the aggravated assault conviction to be served consecutively. In this delayed appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his especially aggravated robbery conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his attorney's motion to withdraw; and (3) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After being indicted for the sale of a controlled substance, the defendant filed an Affidavit of Indigency to obtain a court-appointed lawyer. The State dismissed the drug charges against the defendant and later charged the defendant with aggravated perjury, a Class D felony, regarding his answers to the trial court considering his request for a court-appointed lawyer. He was found guilty and sentenced as a Range I standard offender to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with 180 days to serve and the balance on supervised probation. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict; (2) the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to go to trial without an attorney; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. This is a case of first impression in Tennessee regarding an aggravated perjury conviction for making false statements to the trial court when requesting a court-appointed lawyer. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction of aggravated perjury. We conclude the trial court did not err in requiring the defendant to go to trial without an attorney.

Following the defendant's guilty pleas to the offenses of theft over $1,000 and burglary, both Class D felonies, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent three-year terms in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant posits that minimum, two-year terms of probation, Community Corrections, or split confinement are more appropriate measures. We disagree, however, and affirm.

The petitioner, Michael Russo, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to eleven years for a Class B felony of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, instead of the presumptive minimum sentence of eight years. The defendant also contends the trial court erred in ordering his sentences to run consecutive to a sentence in another county. Absent a sentencing hearing transcript, we conclude the record is inadequate for appellate review, and we must presume the sentences imposed for the Class B felony are correct. Moreover, we note the judgment forms reflect the defendant was sentenced to eleven years on two additional Class C felony convictions of selling less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance. These sentences exceed the statutory range of punishment prescribed for Class C felonies and are illegal. We affirm the judgment from the trial court as related to the defendant's Class B felony convictions and remand the defendant's two Class C felony convictions for correction or for resentencing within the proper statutory range of punishment.

The defendant, Robert Miller, who represented himself at trial, was convicted of vandalism over $500 and criminal trespass. After the trial, the defendant was appointed counsel. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of two years and thirty days, respectively, with all but ten days suspended, to be served in community corrections. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel; (2) that the trial court erred by the omission of a jury instruction; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient. Because the defendant was denied the assistance of counsel at trial, the judgments of conviction are reversed and the causes are remanded for a new trial.

The petitioner, Richard Leonard Mendoza, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty pleas to aggravated sexual battery and that his guilty pleas were involuntary. Additionally, he insists that the post-conviction court erroneously denied funding for expert psychological services at the post-conviction level. After a thorough review of the record, we are unpersuaded that the post-conviction court's rulings, findings and conclusion are anything other than proper, and we affirm the judgment.

The appellant, Guadalupe Arroyo, entered guilty pleas to two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication, Class B felonies. The trial court sentenced the appellant on each count to twelve years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentences and in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the convictions of vehicular homicide; however, finding error in the trial court's sentencing determinations, we remand for resentencing.

The Defendant, Garcia Flores Isidoro, filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied without a hearing as being untimely filed. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's revocation of his probation. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentences in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.