APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Norman Matthews, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In March 2000, Matthews pled guilty to burglary of a building and received an eight-year sentence. On appeal, Matthews argues that: (1) it was error for the post-conviction court to allow trial counsel to remain in the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, despite invocation of "the rule" providing for sequestration of witnesses, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court.

The petitioner, Jesse E. Rogers, entered "best interest" guilty pleas to five counts of rape of a child. He was sentenced to twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for each offense, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of five counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sixteen-year term. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that his counsel at trial was ineffective. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Dickson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Timothy Wayne Grimes, of possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance with intent to deliver, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to eight years in a community corrections program. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to the lesser included offenses of simple possession and casual exchange. We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding simple possession of the controlled substance. Although we hold that casual exchange is not a lesser included offense of possession with intent to deliver, we also conclude that the trial court should have instructed the jury regarding the casual exchange inference provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-419. We reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

Antonio M. Miller appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Miller is presently serving an effective nineteen-year sentence for convictions of second-degree murder, six counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of felony drug possession. He claims that two of his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The lower court ruled against the petitioner, and upon review of the record, we affirm that ruling.

The Defendant, Roy L. Denton, was convicted by a jury of DUI and public intoxication. The Defendant now appeals as of right, raising the following issues: whether the trial court should have dismissed the indictment; whether the trial court should have stayed the proceedings; whether the trial court should have suppressed evidence; whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit certain evidence proffered by the Defendant; whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction of DUI; whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during trial; whether the trial court should have granted the Defendant's motions for mistrial and/or new trial; whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel; and whether the trial court erred with respect to advising the Defendant about his right to appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellants, Ricky Brandon and Jimmy W. Brandon, were convicted by a Coffee County jury of misdemeanor assault. In this direct appeal of their convictions, the Appellants argue that they received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and, as such, their convictions should be vacated. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment.