APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Delaney E. Marcum, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Williamson County Circuit Court. Marcum entered guilty pleas to one count of aggravated burglary, a class C felony, and one count of theft of property over $1,000.00, a class D felony. Under the terms of the agreement, Marcum received concurrent sentences of five years for aggravated burglary and four years for theft. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that Marcum's sentences be served in the Department of Correction and, additionally, he was ordered to pay restitution on both counts. On appeal, Marcum contends that the trial court erred in (1) not sentencing him to probation or any other alternative to incarceration, and (2) ordering restitution in conjunction with total confinement. Finding no error, the judgment of the Williamson County Circuit Court is affirmed.

The defendant, Debra Kay Thomas, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court's resentencing her upon revocation of her community corrections sentence. She claims that the trial court erred in failing to give her credit for the time she served in confinement and in the community corrections program under her original sentence. The state agrees. We hold that the defendant was improperly sentenced and remand the case for resentencing.

A Williamson County grand jury indicted the defendant on alternative counts of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and of driving with a .10% or more alcohol concentration in his blood or breath. At the conclusion of the proof, the trial jury convicted the defendant of the latter offense and assessed a fifteen hundred dollar fine. At sentencing, the trial court approved the fine assessed and further sentenced the defendant to six months to be suspended after the service of thirty days, day for day. Additionally, the court placed the defendant on supervised probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days during which time, among other conditions, the defendant was to complete alcohol safety school. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. Through this appeal the defendant contends that the trial court erred in 1) not excusing four jurors for cause; 2) permitting the prosecutor to make ingratiating statements to the jury during voir dire; 3) overruling counsel's objection to the prosecutor's comment in opening statement that the defendant was "drunk, way too drunk to drive"; 4) finding that the involved forensic scientist for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation was the custodian of the alcohol report, thereby allowing the admission of the report into evidence; 5) concluding that "adult driving while impaired" was not a lesser included offense of driving under the influence; 6) refusing to dismiss count two of the indictment as a nullity; and 7) sentencing the defendant to more than the seven-consecutive-day minimum sentence applicable here. After reviewing each of these assertions, we find that none merit relief and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence. However, in reviewing the case, we have observed an error in the judgment form and, therefore, remand the matter for entry of a corrected judgment.

The appellant, Daryl Keith Holton, was convicted by a jury in the Bedford County Circuit Court of four counts of first degree premeditated murder. The same jury imposed a sentence of death for each count of murder. The appellant now appeals both his convictions and sentences, presenting the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (2) whether the statute setting forth the defense of insanity in Tennessee is violative of the United States Constitution in the context of a prosecution for first degree premeditated murder; (3) whether under the United States Constitution inadequate acoustics in the courtroom during his trial denied the appellant his right to a fair trial; (4) whether under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions the imposition of a sentence of death violates a criminal defendant's fundamental right to life; (5) whether the evidence adduced during the guilt/innocence and sentencing phases of the appellant's trial supports the jury's imposition of sentences of death; and (6) whether the appellant's sentences of death are comparatively disproportionate. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant contests the trial court's revocation of his probation, more specifically its failure to dismiss the probation revocation warrant. We conclude the trial court did not err in not dismissing the warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court with instructions to enter a formal order revoking probation.

The petitioner, Joe Hibbler, III's petition for post-conviction relief was denied by the Shelby County Criminal Court following an evidentiary hearing. Because the record supports the lower court's determination that the petitioner did not demonstrate the ineffective assistance of counsel by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.

Memphis Bonding Company appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's order denying its petitions for exoneration of liability for the defendant Howard C. Covington's bail bonds for various offenses. Because the record fails to reflect that this case is properly before us as a rightful appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

After failing to report to his arrest house and failing a drug screen, defendant's sentence in the Community Corrections Program was revoked, and defendant appealed the revocation. The record contains substantial evidence to support the revocation. We affirm the judgment.

Bonding company for absconded defendant appeals final forfeiture of bond and alleges that its agents were without authority to issue an alleged illegal bond. Concluding that bonding company's employee had authority to act, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of one count of theft of property, one count of aggravated assault, two counts of criminal simulation, one count of evading arrest, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The criminal simulation convictions were merged by the trial court, and the defendant was sentenced as follows: four years for theft of property, four years for criminal simulation, ten years for aggravated assault, and eleven months and twenty nine days for both evading arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for theft, criminal simulation, and evading arrest. He also alleges that the trial court failed to exclude from evidence hearsay testimony and statements to law enforcement in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Further, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted criminal simulation. Finally, the defendant challenges the length and manner of service of his sentences. After a review of the record, we reverse and dismiss the defendant's conviction of criminal simulation. The remaining judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Defendant, John Earl Turner, appeals as of right from the judgment of the trial court, which found him to be in violation of the terms of the probation he was serving for two separate, non-related convictions. After a hearing, the trial judge ordered the Defendant incarcerated for the balance of the sentences, which were being served consecutively to each other. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County deputy jailer saw a plastic bag of 2.5 grams of cocaine fall from the defendant's crotch area as he removed his clothing for a strip search after his arrest for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was subsequently convicted of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and the introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony. He argues on appeal that he cannot be convicted of introduction of contraband into a penal institution when his entrance into the jail was involuntary, and that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions. Based on our review of the record and of applicable law, we conclude that a voluntary entrance into a penal institution is not a requirement of the offense, and that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the defendant's convictions in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant pled guilty to the offense of carjacking and was sentenced to 7.2 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal he claims that he was improperly denied probation because the trial judge mistakenly held that individuals convicted of carjacking were statutorily ineligible for probation. We hold that the legislature has allowed individuals convicted of carjacking and sentenced to eight (8) years or less to remain eligible for probation. Moreover, the trial judge also erred in determining that the use of a weapon in a carjacking was, standing alone, sufficient reason to deny the defendant probation. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.