APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant was convicted of second degree murder by a Shelby County jury in the shooting death of his girlfriend. He was sentenced to twenty years as a standard offender, with his sentence to be served without parole eligibility in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises one issue: whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the mother of the victim concerning a prior alleged assault on the victim by the defendant. We conclude that the evidence was admissible, having satisfied all three conditions for admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1)-(3). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Daniel Thomason appeals from the aggravated robbery conviction he received at a jury trial in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Thomason is serving an eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction for his crime. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence that he accomplished the robbery “by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon.” Because the record before us is does not contain all of the relevant evidence presented at trial, we are precluded from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence and therefore affirm.

The Defendant, Michael Thomas, appeals as of right from the denial of post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We find no merit to the Defendant's assertions; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I join with Judge Ogle in concluding that the Appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated. I would also make the observation that, similar in purpose to the DUI statute, the stated public policy purpose in enacting the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act was to remove from the highways those offenders who have "demonstrated their indifference to the safety and welfare of others." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-602(2).

The defendant, David Scarbrough, was convicted of two counts of felony murder, two counts of theft, and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each of the murders, a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary and sentences of 11 months, 29 days for each of the thefts. All sentences are to be served consecutively. In this appeal of right, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the defendant's statement to police was made knowingly and voluntarily; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of a juror; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for continuance; (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on facilitation of felony murder; (6) whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the crime scene; (7) whether the trial court erred by refusing to permit a private investigator to testify; (8) whether the trial court properly refused to allow the testimony of a psychologist during the guilt phase of trial; (9) whether the sentences were excessive; and (10) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. Because the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of facilitation of felony murder and because such error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the felony murder convictions are reversed and the causes are remanded for a new trial. The remaining convictions are affirmed.

The petitioner, Daniel M. Banks, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petitioner was provided the effective assistance of counsel and knowingly and voluntarily entered his pleas of guilt to possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of over 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia, the judgment is affirmed.