APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for driving on a revoked license. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment

The petitioner appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition. The issue presented for appeal is whether the petitioner's post-conviction petition is barred by the statute of limitations. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of reckless aggravated assault and sentenced as a Standard Range I offender to two (2) years, with all but ten (10) days suspended. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant acted recklessly in causing serious bodily injury to the victim. However, applying the appropriate factors for consideration, we conclude that the defendant is eligible for judicial diversion, and there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's denial of the defendant's request for judicial diversion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

The defendant was convicted of intentionally evading arrest in an automobile, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a career offender to six years incarceration. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by classifying him as a career offender. Concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's determination that the defendant is a career offender, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for re-sentencing.

The appellant, Russell Lane Overby, appeals from the Hardin County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On December 8, 1997, Overby was found guilty of rape by a Hardin County jury, and was sentenced to a term of twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this collateral attack of his rape conviction, Overby alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, both at trial and on direct appeal. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Kardius Wilks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Wilks contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his first degree murder conviction because the State failed to prove that the murder was premeditated and intentionally committed. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After the defendant's arrest for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder, a Shelby County General Sessions Court conducted a preliminary hearing to determine if there was probable cause to support his arrest. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the court dismissed the defendant's case. However, a Shelby County grand jury later indicted the defendant for first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. Pursuant to a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve twenty years in confinement. The defendant now brings this appeal, challenging his conviction on the basis that (1) he was denied an opportunity to review the preliminary hearing tape, which was destroyed, and that (2) the trial court refused to admit certain testimony to cure this deficiency. After reviewing these claims, we find that neither of them merit relief. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's convictions.

The defendant, Larry Brooks, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, vandalism, and theft up to $500. The defendant was subsequently sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty years for the robbery, ten years for the assault, ten years for the burglary, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the misdemeanors, all sentences to run concurrently. In this direct appeal the defendant raises four issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant more than forty-five days after the jury verdict; and (4) whether the trial court erred in classifying the defendant as a persistent offender in imposing sentence. Finding that principles of double jeopardy prohibit the defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and theft, we reverse and dismiss those convictions. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner was convicted by a Cocke County jury of seven counts of selling cocaine and one count of simple possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied postconviction relief, and this appeal ensued. Concluding that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant was found guilty of violating the state speeding law by the Fairview City Court and, on appeal, was again found guilty by the Circuit Court of Williamson County. In this appeal, defendant contends he was denied his constitutional right to trial by jury, and the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Although we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, we conclude defendant was deprived of his right to trial by jury. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The defendant was convicted by a Davidson County jury of DUI. In this appeal, he alleges the Vehicular Crimes Grand Jury, which was convened in Davidson County to consider only vehicle-related crimes, was illegally empaneled. He further contends the investigatory stop of his automobile was improper. We affirm.

The appellant, Walter McGill, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery by an authority figure and was sentenced to five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant him full probation, or, in the alternative, split confinement. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jack Clayton Moberly, Jr., was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class D felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of ten years for the aggravated robbery conviction, two years for the conspiracy to commit robbery conviction, and four years for the aggravated assault conviction. The defendant appeals his aggravated robbery conviction, claiming that the indictment fails to allege that offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted an extraordinary appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(a), to consider the Washington County Criminal Court’s denial of the defendant’s ex parte motion seeking funds for expert services, as outlined in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 and the holding in State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1995). We stayed the trial court’s proceedings pending our consideration of this issue. Upon a thorough review of the record in this case, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we reverse the ruling of the trial court, remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion, and lift the previously ordered stay so that trial court proceedings may resume.

The defendant, Hamadi G. Haley, was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a sentence of life with the possibility of parole for the felony murder, 17 years for the especially aggravated robbery, and eight years for the aggravated robbery, with all terms to be served concurrently. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that he was denied access to material witnesses by the state and that he should have been granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated burglary and possession of burglary tools. After a review of the record, we conclude that the defendant was not prejudiced by the State’s failure to redact an obscure reference to the defendant’s probation status from an audio taped statement that was played at trial. However, we are unable to find sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had a hammer and screwdriver in his automobile with the intent to commit burglary. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction for possession of burglary tools, a Class A misdemeanor, is reversed and dismissed. The aggravated burglary conviction is affirmed.