APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The post-conviction petitioner, Larry N. Wilson, seeks to set aside his four Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated robbery and his effective 24-year sentence. The convictions were based on guilty pleas. In his post-conviction proceeding, he posited that the pleas were involuntarily or unknowingly made and that they were the result of the ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Concluding that the record supports that determination, we affirm.

This case involves a medical malpractice claim that was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court. The plaintiff, Steffone McClendon, appealed to this Court, seeking a reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment. We affirmed the trial court’s decision based on the legislative history and our interpretation of Section 20-1-119 of the Tennessee code. The plaintiff sought a review of this Court’s decision with the Tennessee Supreme Court. Although the supreme court refused to hear the case, it remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., Inc., 50 S.W. 3d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) released this year by the middle
section of this Court and recently published.

Indicted for the offense of premeditated first degree murder, defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-three years. In this appeal as of right, defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the state referred to defendant's being in jail pending trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor misstated the evidence in final argument; (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when extraneous prejudicial information was present during jury deliberations; and (6) whether the sentence was excessive. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Michael Douglas Hughes, entered a plea of no contest to one count of aggravated rape, and a plea of guilty to ten counts of aggravated rape, on November 30, 1992. On March 4, 1993, a sentencing hearing was held and the Defendant was sentenced for these crimes to an aggregate term of eighty years. The Defendant's trial counsel failed to timely perfect the Defendant's appeal, and on June 30, 1995, the Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, seeking a delayed appeal. The delayed appeal was granted and this Court affirmed the Defendant's sentence. See State v. Michael Douglas Hughes, No. 01C01-9701-CR-00021, 1998 WL 301730, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 10, 1998). The Tennessee Supreme Court denied the Defendant's application for permission to appeal on February 22, 1999. The Defendant filed the present petition for post-conviction relief on August 25, 1999, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his plea, sentencing, and on appeal; that his guilty plea is invalid because it was not made voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly; and that the length of his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court dismissed the present petition on the grounds that it was not timely filed, that the grounds for relief have been waived, and that it does not contain grounds sufficient to constitute a motion to reopen the previous petition. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We reverse the trial court's ruling and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

The defendant appeals the denial of probation for the five-year sentence he received for sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. He asserts that the record fails to support a conclusion that the statutory presumption of his eligibility for alternative sentencing has been rebutted. We modify the term of confinement and order supervised probation forthwith and remand the case to the trial court for imposition of appropriate conditions.

The defendant appeals his premeditated first degree murder and abuse of a corpse convictions for which he received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and two years, respectively, arguing:
(1) the trial court erred in not enforcing a plea agreement; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions; (3) hearsay  evidence of the victim’s statements was erroneously admitted; (4) evidence obtained via wiretaps was erroneously admitted; (5) evidence regarding defendant’s alleged romantic relationship with a woman other than his wife was erroneously admitted; and (6) the trial court should have charged the jury regarding alibi. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in all respects save one. I seriously question the conclusion that all of the victim’s statements to her mother were admissible as excited utterances. A declarant’s opinion about who caused an event would ordinarily not be admissible even if the declarant appeared and testified at a trial. Here, I do not believe that the victim’s opinion about who started the fire was admissible.  However, given the location and timing of the fire, the inferences drawn by the victim as to the potential cause of it would be obvious to the jury in any event. Thus, I do not believe that the error affected the verdict.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to ten counts of rape of a child. On appeal, the petitioner raises the issues of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and whether his guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, he alleged that his conviction should be set aside because the victim had recanted his testimony. Following a hearing, the trial court denied relief and the petitioner appealed. After a thorough review, we affirm the court's order of denial.

The Defendant, Ned Jackson,¹ was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that insufficient evidence of the Defendant’s identity as the culprit was presented to convict the Defendant of aggravated robbery and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of theft and aggravated assault. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff counter-defendant, ShoLodge Franchise Systems, Inc. (hereafter "Sholodge") has appealed from a jury verdict of $327,272 in favor of the defendant counterplaintiff McKibbon Brothers, Inc. (hereafter McKibbon) for damages for breach of a franchise contract.

This is an appeal by petitioner, Johnny W. Raines, from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for certiorari from a decision of the Tennessee Board of Paroles (Board).

While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilt of aggravated robbery, I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses.
Currently, members of this court are divided concerning the correct interpretation of the two-step process set forth by our supreme court in State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 469 (Tenn. 1999), for determining if the evidence adduced at trial justifies jury instructions on lesser-included offenses. See, e.g., State v. Linnell Richmond, No. E2000-01545-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1222247 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, October 15, 2001). I am largely in agreement with the position expressed by Judge Smith in his opinion in Richmond, No. E2000-01545-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1222247, at *21 (concurring in part and dissenting in part)(footnote omitted), that [a] reading of the recent cases of [State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tenn. 2001), and State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 724-725 (Tenn. 2001),] leads one to the inescapable conclusion that our high court has mandated that lesser-included offense instructions be given anytime the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for these offenses. This means that anytime the proof is sufficient for a conviction of the indicted offense, the proof will a fortiori be sufficient for a conviction of the lesser-included offenses. . . . As a practical matter, this in turn means that it will almost always be error to fail to instruct the jury as to all lesser-included offenses of the indicted offense. Thus, the only real inquiry, in my opinion, in virtually all of the cases raising the lesser-included offense issue is whether the error in failing to instruct on the lesser offenses can be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendants James Whitelow and Robert Robertson appeal their convictions for possession of cocaine in an amount over 26 grams with intent to deliver. Both argue the evidence was not sufficient to support their convictions. Whitelow also argues the forensic report was erroneously admitted into evidence, and the jury's verdict was the result of passion and prejudice caused by the prosecutor's statements regarding Whitelow's alias nickname. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.