APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Humphreys County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant of rape, and the trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to ten years, with 100% of his sentence to be served. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to convict him of rape, in admitting a statement he made to the police, in admitting evidence of the victim's mental capacity, in denying his Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412 motion, and in failing to instruct the jury as to assault. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal challenges the dismissal of a defendant. The circuit court granted John Cook's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02 motion for involuntary dismissal and found that he did not personally guarantee the debt of Bennett Hill Spring, LLC when he signed the Credit Application as "Operations Manager." Appellant challenges the circuit court's decision to grant the motion which dismissed John Cook as an individual defendant. As discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court granting John Cook's motion for involuntary dismissal. The circuit court was correct that, from a reading of the contract as a whole, it is not apparent that John Cook personally guaranteed payment by signing the Credit Application.

The defendant was convicted by a Lincoln County Circuit Court Jury of robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years, three months in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the State's peremptory challenge of the only African-American member of the venire was exercised on race-neutral grounds. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Frederick Beauregard, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In May of 1997, Beauregard was convicted of the rape and incest of his thirteen-year-old daughter. He received an effective sentence of nine years for the convictions. Beauregard's convictions and sentences were later affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Beauregard, 32 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2000). On February 13, 2001, Beauregard timely filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief which was amended following appointment of counsel. Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court denied Beauregard's petition.

From this denial, Beauregard now appeals asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the following respects: (1) trial counsel was inadequately prepared for trial; (2) trial counsel failed to properly investigate, interview or call material witnesses at trial; (3) trial counsel failed to discuss trial strategy or the theory of the case with Beauregard; (4) trial counsel failed to review the jury list with Beauregard; (5) trial counsel failed to develop testimony with regard to the chain of custody of the rape kit and its reliability; and (6) trial counsel failed to provide expert proof to rebut the State's DNA expert. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Thomas Gatewood, was indicted for first degree murder but convicted of second degree murder, for which he was sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-three years imprisonment. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in not granting a continuance because of a missing witness, in not instructing as to the lesser-included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide and that his sentence was excessive. Although issues one and three are without merit, we agree that the jury should have been instructed as to the lesser offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

The Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's action, pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02, for failure to pay costs which had been assessed as a sanction. On appeal, we affirm, as modified.

The defendant, Jeffrey Douglas Stratton, pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft involving checks that he had forged. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, the defendant was sentenced to four years on each count, and two of the sentences were to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of eight years. The trial court was to determine the manner of service of the sentences. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed fully incarcerative sentences to be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals this sentencing determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a burglary conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to provide information that was essential for him to make informed decisions in his case and failed to present an adequate defense at trial, and that the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance was to prejudice the outcome of his case. We affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a burglary conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to provide information that was essential for him to make informed decisions in his case and failed to present an adequate defense at trial, and that the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance was to prejudice the outcome of his case. We affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Jimmy L. Slatton, pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery and agreed to a six-year sentence. The plea agreement provided that the trial court would determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing and imposed incarceration in the Department of Correction. From this determination, the defendant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his sentence was illegal because: (1) he was improperly sentenced as a persistent offender; (2) his sentence was improperly enhanced because he did not receive the State's notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment; (3) the record of his prior criminal convictions relied upon to sentence him was inaccurate; and (4) his counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Because the Petitioner has failed to allege grounds that would warrant habeas corpus relief, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.