APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, David D. Bottoms, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's order of restitution following his conviction for arson. On appeal, Bottoms argues the amount of restitution was excessive. Upon de novo review, we find that the victim did not provide sufficient evidence of his pecuniary loss for damages to the rental property. Accordingly, the amount of restitution as imposed by the trial court is modified, and the case is remanded for entry of a sentencing order in accordance with this opinion.

The appellant, Joseph Batts, was convicted by a jury of the offense of rape. He was sentenced to a term of twelve (12) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for rape and that his sentence is excessive. After carefully reviewing the record as presented, we are of the opinion that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Moreover, in the absence of a transcript of the sentencing hearing we must presume the sentence is correct. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, James William Dash, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. In this appeal of right, the petitioner argues that the trial court clerk erroneously filed the petition in the criminal court rather than the circuit court, that his judgment of conviction is void, and that the trial court erred in the assessment of costs. The trial court's order taxing costs to the petitioner is reversed. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Kenneth Ray White, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court denying his request for probation. In this appeal, White raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a sentence of incarceration rather than the less restrictive alternative of community corrections. After review, we find no abuse of discretion. As such, the trial court's decision is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense; driving on a revoked license; felonious evading arrest; and violating the open container law. The trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal as to the felonious evading arrest conviction and imposed the following sentences: eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended after serving ten months in continuous confinement, for DUI, third offense; four months in the county jail, plus six months' probation, for driving on a revoked license; and thirty days for violating the open container law, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request to give the jury the missing witness instruction and by improperly sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to Count 2 reflecting that the defendant was convicted of third offense DUI.

The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense; driving on a revoked license; felonious evading arrest; and violating the open container law. The trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal as to the felonious evading arrest conviction and imposed the following sentences: eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended after serving ten months in continuous confinement, for DUI, third offense; four months in the county jail, plus six months' probation, for driving on a revoked license; and thirty days for violating the open container law, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request to give the jury the missing witness instruction and by improperly sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to Count 2 reflecting that the defendant was convicted of third offense DUI.

The petitioner, Roy C. Smith, Jr., pled guilty to one count of rape of a child and was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his conviction is illegal because he pled guilty to a crime that was not in effect at the time of the commission of the offense.  The trial court dismissed the petition and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’  briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant pled guilty to burglary, theft under $500, and vandalism under $500 and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of four years with the requirement that he serve one year "day for day" in the county jail followed by twelve years of supervised probation. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the length of his sentence is excessive; (2) he should have been granted full probation; and (3) the trial court erred in requiring him to serve his time of confinement "day for day." We remand for deletion of the "day for day" requirement because it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to earn statutory sentencing credits; however, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

Defendant pled guilty to burglary, theft under $500, and vandalism under $500 and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of four years with the requirement that he serve one year "day for day" in the county jail followed by twelve years of supervised probation. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the length of his sentence is excessive; (2) he should have been granted full probation; and (3) the trial court erred in requiring him to serve his time of confinement "day for day." We remand for deletion of the "day for day" requirement because it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to earn statutory sentencing credits; however, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.