APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner,Wayne Miles, appeals as of right from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner argues that he is being illegally detained because his convictions are void. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The petitioner, Bryan Hanley, was convicted by a jury in the Hickman County Circuit Court of one count of first degree murder and one count of theft of property over $1000. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the murder conviction and to three years incarceration for the theft conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur in the majority opinion, except I question whether a post-conviction petitioner has a right to self-representation at his or her will. In this respect, I view this court’s statements in Cole v. State, 798 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990), regarding a common law right to self-representation as dicta; self-representation was certainly not an issue in the appeal.

The defendant, Michael T. Meghreblian, is serving a seven and one-half year sentence in the Department of Correction as a result of his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of aggravated assault. On appeal, he complains that the trial court erred (1) in determining the length of his Range II sentence and (2) in denying any form of alternative sentence. Because the record supports the trial court's determinations, we affirm.

The defendant appeals his conviction of violating the motor vehicle habitual offender law. Because we find that his motor vehicle offender status was terminated before he was discovered driving a motor vehicle, we conclude that the convicting evidence was insufficient. We reverse the conviction and dismiss the charge.

In May of 1993, the Appellant, Bobby Vincent Blackmon, was indicted by a Sumner County grand jury for one count of class A felony possession of cocaine over 300 grams stemming from his involvement in a "reverse sting" drug operation. He was subsequently convicted in February of 1995. In 1998, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted Blackmon a new trial. See State v. Bobby Vincent Blackmon, 984 S.W.2d 589 (Tenn. 1998).

In November of 1999, Blackmon was re-tried and again convicted of the offense of possession with the intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine. After a sentencing hearing on May 17, 2000, the trial court sentenced Blackmon to thirty-eight years as a Range II offender and ordered his sentence be served consecutive to a prior first-degree murder conviction.

On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether Blackmon was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow Blackmon to assert an "outrageous government conduct" defense, an entrapment defense and/or an impossibility defense; (3) whether the indictment in this case was fatally defective; and (4) whether the sentence was excessive. After review, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

The Defendant, Oscar Gomez, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and theft under five hundred dollars. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and to a concurrent term of six months for the theft. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence of premeditated murder is insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Oudon Panyanouvong, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. After the appointment of post-conviction counsel,the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney and ultimately refused to proceed with the evidentiary hearing. The issue is whether the trial court's summary dismissal was erroneous. Because the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to proceed pro se and was not specifically admonished of the perils of pro se representation, the judgment of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

J.D. Landers appeals from the Perry County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He seeks to set aside his conviction and guilty plea because he was not provided the effective assistance of counsel and did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently enter his guilty plea. Because the trial court properly dismissed the petition, we affirm.

The Defendant, Burita A. Winebarger, was charged in an arrest warrant with the offense of theft of property less than $500.00 in value. She pled guilty to the offense in the General Sessions Court of Sullivan County. The General Sessions Court sentenced her to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but thirty days suspended. Defendant filed a timely appeal to the Criminal Court of Sullivan County. On the date that the case was set for "announcement" in criminal court, Defendant was approximately one hour late in arriving at court. The criminal court dismissed the appeal for "failure to prosecute" and remanded the case to the General Sessions Court of Sullivan County for "execution of the sentence." The Defendant filed a timely appeal to this court. After a review of the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the criminal court and remand for a sentencing hearing de novo.