APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated burglary and assault. The Defendant received a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary conviction and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault conviction. The trial court ordered that the six-year sentence for aggravated burglary be served concurrently with the sentence for assault, but consecutively to a sentence for evading arrest from another case. The Defendant's effective sentence in this case is six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentence for aggravated burglary and the manner of service of his sentences. Although the trial court misapplied certain enhancement factors, we conclude that the sentences imposed are appropriate and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee insists the commission erred in dismissing his claim for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

The defendant, Lakisha S. Thomas, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of five years for the aggravated assault conviction and three years for the reckless aggravated assault conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court committed various sentencing errors. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner was denied habeas corpus relief by the trial court. He now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing and in failing to appoint counsel to assist him with his habeas corpus claim. We affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief.

The defendant, Woodson Carter Criner, was convicted in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court of driving under the influence (DUI) and received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be suspended after serving one hundred twenty days in jail and a fine of one thousand one hundred dollars. The state appeals, claiming that the defendant's DUI sentence is illegal because the defendant was convicted of felony DUI. Although we hold that the trial court could sentence the defendant to less than one year for a Class E felony, we remand the case to the trial court to clarify whether the defendant was convicted of felony or misdemeanor DUI, review the defendant's sentence, and reenter the judgment.

The appellant, Rickie Reed, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court merged the reckless aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second degree murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the second degree murder conviction and a sentence of twelve years incarceration for the attempted second degree murder conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal of right, the appellant alleges that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dianna Helton Hord, pled guilty to driving under the influence and driving on a revoked license. As part of her plea agreement, she expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law stems from the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellants, Kenneth P. Bondurant and Hugh Peter Bondurant, appeal from the dismissal of their post-conviction petitions following a hearing on the question of whether the petitions were filed within the time prescribed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a). The trial court found from the evidence presented that the petitions were filed more than one year from the final action of the highest appellate court to which an appeal was taken and that the petitions were time barred. As a result the petitions were dismissed.

In this appeal the appellants present two issues for our consideration. First, the appellants challenge whether the trial court erred in finding that the first post-conviction petitions filed by the appellants from prison were mailed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Second, the appellants ask us to interpret Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a) so as to begin the running of the statute of limitations from the date the highest appellate court's mandate is filed on direct appeal. We find no error in the findings of the trial court, and we decline to interpret Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a) in the manner urged by the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.