APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Wilson County jury convicted the Petitioner of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to twenty years in the Department of Correction. On direct appeal, the Petitioner's sole issue was that the twenty year sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. This Court affirmed the trial court's twenty-year sentence. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The post-conviction court found that Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support his claims and dismissed the petition. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel and flaws in the voir dire. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury found the Petitioner, Leonard E. Baugh, Jr., guilty of one count of especially aggravated robbery, five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Leonard Edward Baugh, Jr., M2000-00477-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 415, (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 1, 2001). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Billy Wayne Cosby, pled nolo contendere in the Giles County Circuit Court to aggravated assault and received a sentence of eight years incarceration. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, which petition was denied. On appeal, the petitioner contests the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for the appointment of new counsel and further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The defendant, Michael Joseph Cook, was convicted of manufacturing a Schedule II controlled substance and conspiracy to manufacture a Schedule II controlled substance, Class C and D felonies. The trial court merged the conspiracy conviction into the Class C felony and imposed a four-year community based alternative sentence. As a part of the sentence, the defendant was ordered to serve one year in jail. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient and that his sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Leslie Darrell Debord, pled guilty in the Cumberland County Criminal Court to two counts theft of property over one thousand dollars ($1000), Class D felonies, and three counts of theft of property over ten thousand dollars ($10,000), Class C felonies. The trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court suspended the appellant's sentence, ordering the appellant to serve 104 days in the Cumberland County Jail on consecutive weekends and the remainder in a community corrections program. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal certified questions of law challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Demond Gardner, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree, premeditated murder. He received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erroneously ruled that the state could question him about the significance of his tattoo, (3) the trial court erred in admitting inflammatory and prejudicial photographs of the victim, and (4) the trial court erred in allowing improper and prejudicial argument by the prosecutor. We affirm the trial court=s judgment of conviction.

The Appellant, Gary Wallace, seeks review of the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, pursuant to the Tennessee Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 and the court’s refusal to permit him to reopen his 1994 petition for post-conviction relief. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in both respects.

The appellant, Frankie Lee Woodard, was indicted on October 29, 1999, by the Robertson County Grand Jury on one count of theft of property over $500. The appellant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant now appeals contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction for theft of property over five hundred dollars and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the value of the stolen item. After a review of the record before this Court we find these issues have no merit and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant was charged with and convicted of burglary. The trial court sentenced him to three years' incarceration. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) that the State did not establish a proper chain of custody concerning the stolen property in this case. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that legally sufficient evidence was presented at the Defendant's trial to support his conviction and thus that the trial court did not err by denying the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. We also conclude that a proper chain of evidence was established for the recovered property in this case and thus that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the property into evidence. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The parties have addressed several issues in this case, each of which concerns the trial court's authority to grant relief pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, which articulates the procedure for correcting or reducing a sentence. Only one, however is dispositive: whether the trial court can, after adjudicating guilt, imposing sentence, and entering judgment, grant judicial diversion as Rule 35(b) relief. This issue is one of first impression in this state. After careful examination of the record and due consideration of applicable authority, we conclude that there is no statutory authority for permitting judicial diversion after an adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence. Therefore, judicial diversion was erroneously granted. Because our ruling on this issue is dispositive of this cause, we need not address other issues presented by the parties.

The defendants, Jackie Leonard Durham and Gary Lee Raines, alias Gary L. Rains, appeal as of right their convictions by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury for second degree murder, a Class A felony. Durham received an agreed twenty-five-year sentence as a violent offender, and Raines received an agreed twenty-year sentence as a violent offender. Both defendants contend that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support their second degree murder convictions and (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument requires a new trial. Additionally, Raines contends that (3) the trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on voluntary intoxication. We affirm the trial court's judgments of conviction.