APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

Antonio Young appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The lower court found his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel unsupported by the evidence and denied relief. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm.

A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant, Frederick H. Gonzales, Jr., of selling cocaine in an amount of .5 grams or more and assessed a fine of $50,000. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve nine years as a Range I offender and reduced his fine to $5,000. The defendant now brings this appeal, challenging the trial court's failure to grant his motion for new trial on the basis that (1) evidence of a prior bad act committed by the defendant was improperly admitted at trial and that (2) the state improperly referred to the defendant's failure to call witnesses in closing arguments. Because we find that (1) the defendant opened the door to the prior bad act testimony and waived this issue by failing to object at trial and that (2) the prosecutor's reference to missing witnesses was harmless error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals his sentence of life imprisonment without parole as a repeat violent offender because he was not tried within 180 days of arraignment. Because the defendant did not prove that he suffered prejudice from the delay in bringing his case to trial, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant appeals her sentence of confinement after pleading guilty to theft under $500.00, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-103. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months, 29 days at 75% release eligibility, with 150 days of shock incarceration. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in not granting her full probation. However, the defendant did not meet her burden necessary to prove the impropriety of her sentence. Our supreme court acknowledges that trial courts have more flexibility in misdemeanor sentencing than in felony sentencing. Given the defendant's prior criminal history and the flexibility granted to trial courts in misdemeanor sentencing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Michael Cammon, was convicted in a jury trial of robbery, aggravated assault and possession of over 300 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. He was also convicted of felony possession of a weapon. For these offenses the appellant received sentences of three years, three years, twenty-two years, and two years, respectively. All sentences were set to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to any previous sentences the appellant might have to serve. In this appeal he raises three issues for our consideration. First, he claims the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the testimony of his accomplice. Secondly, he alleges that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to the amount of controlled substance required for the offense charged. Finally, the appellant complains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. We find no reversible error with respect to the narcotics offense or with respect to the conviction for aggravated robbery. Those convictions are affirmed. However, we must reverse the conviction for aggravated assault and remand this case for a new trial.

The defendant, Romania Ann Gadson, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to seven felonies. While she was on probation for those crimes, the defendant committed and was convicted of three additional felonies and one misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation, determined that her effective sentence for the "old" convictions was twelve years, and ordered that she serve the twelve-year sentence in incarceration. The trial court also sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of five years in confinement for the "new" convictions and ordered that she serve the five-year sentence consecutively to the twelve-year sentence. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the trial court incorrectly calculated the effective sentence for her old convictions to be twelve years; (2) that the trial court erred in sentencing her to the maximum punishment in the range for one of her new convictions; and (3) that she should have received a community corrections sentence for her new convictions. As to the defendant's claim that the trial court incorrectly calculated her twelve-year sentence, we remand the judgments of conviction to the trial court. As to the defendant's new convictions, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant and affirm those judgments of conviction.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Aaron Lembar Smith, was found guilty of two counts of Class D felony burglary (a building other than a habitation), one count of Class E felony vandalism, two counts of Class D felony theft, and one count of Class D felony vandalism. One of the burglaries, the Class D felony vandalism, and one of the Class D felony thefts, involved an incident which occurred at Centennial Elementary School in Dickson. The other charges involved an incident at Buckner City Park, which is located on property adjoining Centennial Elementary School. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions for the burglary, vandalism, and theft convictions arising from the incident at Centennial Elementary School. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, or raise any other issues, regarding the remaining charges. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the convictions for burglary, vandalism, and theft regarding the incident at Centennial Elementary School. However, our review of the record indicates errors in the judgments; as the sentencing hearing is not a part of the record, but the judgments on their face are erroneous, we remand these cases to the Circuit Court of Dickson County for amended judgments to be entered or for a new sentencing hearing, if necessary.

The Blount County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for second degree murder, and following a trial, a Blount County jury convicted the Defendant of reckless homicide. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years for the crime and ordered that she serve her entire sentence in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that she was improperly sentenced. Specifically, she contests the length of her sentence, and she contends that she should have been granted some form of alternative sentencing. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing the Defendant, and we therefore affirm the sentence imposed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of forgery and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to an effective term of two years, which was suspended and ordered to be served on probation. Various probation violation warrants were filed, alleging that the defendant had failed to comply with the conditions of probation and, in general, was uncooperative with those in charge of supervising his sentence. Following a hearing on the fourth such warrant, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the sentence originally imposed. The defendant appealed. Upon review of the record, we detect no abuse of the trial court's discretion and affirm the judgment.

Petitioner was convicted by jury of one count of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner now appeals from the denial of relief from the post-conviction court. We affirm the denial of relief.

The Defendant, James M. Powers, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury of four counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years on each of the four counts and ordered that three of the sentences run consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixty years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant argues two issues on appeal: (1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his four convictions of child rape, and (2) that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the Defendant's convictions. We reverse the trial court's order that the sentences be served consecutively and remand for the entry of an order reflecting concurrent sentences.

The Defendant, Corrie J. Johnson, was convicted by a jury of selling cocaine, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to eight years, to be served consecutively to two other sentences, for which the Defendant was on probation. The trial court also revoked the Defendant's probation on the two prior convictions. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents three issues: whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction, whether the trial court erred in its application of enhancing and mitigating factors when deciding the Defendant's sentence, and whether the trial court erred by revoking the Defendant's probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.