APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner appeals the denial by the trial court of his writ of habeas corpus and writ of certiorari. Petitioner contended in his petition that he previously pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Madison County to the offenses of facilitation of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery, and arson, and received an effective sentence of 60 years. He further contended that court did not have jurisdiction to try him as an adult; his rights to double jeopardy were violated as a result of his transfer to the Criminal Court; and he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without appointing counsel, without conducting a hearing, and by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority opinion that the granting or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and that a trial court should grant a mistrial only when it is of “manifest necessity.” I would add that the burden of establishing a “manifest necessity” is upon the appellant. State v. Williams, 929 S.W.2d 385, 388 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

The defendant, a construction company payroll clerk, was convicted of fourteen counts of forgery, Class E felonies, and one count of theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony, for utilizing her position at the company to write and cash invalid checks on her employer's account. She was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to three years on each forgery conviction, and six years on the theft conviction, to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of six years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of her prior crimes to be admitted at trial, and that the evidence was not sufficient to support her convictions. After a careful review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing the State to impeach the defendant's credibility by questioning her about her prior convictions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On November 24, 1998, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated assault. Following a subsequent jury trial, the Defendant was convicted on both counts. On September 30, 1998, after a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to serve thirty years incarceration for the aggravated robbery consecutively to fifteen years for the aggravated assault. The court also ordered both sentences served consecutively to a sentence for which the Defendant was on parole. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider robbery and theft as lesser-included offenses of aggravated robbery and that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider reckless endangerment, reckless aggravated assault and simple assault as lesser-included offenses of aggravated assault. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.as lesser-included offenses of aggravated assault. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court., we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Rhonda Grills, was convicted of facilitation of the felony rape of a child less than 13 years of age. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of 10 years. The defendant was fined $25,000.00. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Because the evidence is adequate to support the facilitation of the rape of a child, the judgment is affirmed.

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of one count of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and two counts of possession of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced each Defendant to three (3) years in the Department of Correction for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for possession of methamphetamine. In this appeal as of right, Defendants assert that the trial court erred as to whether Defendant, Sammy Wilson, gave Investigator Markin consent to search his truck. From our review of the transcript of the motion to suppress, the trial record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Kenneth Griffin, was found guilty of burglary (Class D) and theft (Class D) following a bench trial. He was sentenced as a career offender on each conviction to twelve (12) years incarceration, and the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. The Defendant, with counsel, appealed the conviction raising the sole issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. This court affirmed. State v. Kenneth S. Griffin, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9811-CR-00406, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1316, Knox County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 27, 1999). Subsequently, Defendant timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, apparently among other issues, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal because appellate counsel did not raise as an issue the consecutive sentencing ordered by the trial court. The post-conviction court, in a written order, granted Defendant a "delayed appeal" as "authorized under TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED SECTION. 40-30-213." The post-conviction court's order limited the delayed appeal to the sole issue "of the correctness of [defendant's] sentence." However, the post-conviction court, while impliedly finding ineffective assistance of counsel for not raising the sentencing issue on direct appeal, made no finding that the Petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient representation. In any event, we find that the granting of a delayed appeal from the original conviction is not authorized by statute, and accordingly, this appeal from the sentence imposed in the original convictions is dismissed.

The defendant was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder. She timely appealed, arguing that the State had failed to show that statements she gave while a juvenile were admissible, that the trial court erred in not instructing as to lesser-included offenses or that the jury must find whether felony murder was a "natural and probable consequence" of especially aggravated robbery, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner/appellant, Franklin Parton, filed a pro se "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" in the Knox County Criminal Court, which was dismissed by the trial court without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and for treatment of the petition as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. This motion was also summarily denied by the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.