APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial where he was convicted of second degree murder. We affirm.

The defendant, Charles R. Blackstock, pled guilty to especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of rape of a child. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-305, 39-13-522. The trial court imposed 25-year sentences on each offense. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of 75 years. The sentence for especially aggravated kidnapping and the consecutive sentencing order are affirmed. Because the trial court erroneously applied certain enhancement factors to each of the sentences for rape of a child, the terms are modified to 23 years.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years as a Violent Offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial confession. We conclude that the defendant's initial arrest was without probable cause, and that the defendant's confession was obtained approximately 53 hours from his arrest without a judicial determination of probable cause. The defendant's confession was, therefore, erroneously admitted, and the error was not harmless. We reverse the defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial.

Defendant challenges the denial of pretrial diversion by the District Attorney General and subsequent denial of relief by the trial court. We conclude that the defendant failed to file a petition for writ of certiorari and improperly sought to have the trial court consider matters not presented to the District Attorney General; thus, defendant has failed to establish that the District Attorney General abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Charles Shelton, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by the Johnson County, Tennessee, Criminal Court. Following a review of the petition and the record herein we find that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED.

A Marshall County grand jury indicted the petitioner on two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of theft, and one count of evading arrest. On October 29, 1997, the petitioner entered an open plea of guilt, reserving the determination of the length and manner of sentencing for the trial court.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total of thirty-four years as a Range III persistent offender. In making its sentencing determination, the trial court ran several of the offenses consecutively. On direct appeal, the petitioner challenged his sentence as excessive.  State v. Hayes, No. 01C01-9804-CC-00176, 1999 WL 126650 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, March 11, 1999). Finding that the record supported the trial court’s sentence determination, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id. at *2. The petitioner then unsuccessfully applied for
permission to appeal the trial court’s sentence determination to the Tennessee Supreme Court.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court judge who imposed his sentence should have recused himself due to his personal knowledge of the facts of and victims in the case. The court
appointed counsel for the petitioner, and the petitioner’s newly appointed counsel then filed an amendment to the earlier petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by both trial and appellate counsel. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition and dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition, alleging that he received both ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for recusal. After the reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find these issues to be without merit and therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

Defendant entered pleas of guilty to the rape of a child in Counts 1, 6, and 7 of the indictment and in Count 3, a plea of guilty to aggravated sexual battery. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed sentences of 24 years for each count of rape of a child and 12 years for the offense of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, resulting in a sentence of 84 years. On direct appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing an inappropriate sentence on each count and erred in imposing consecutive sentencing on all charges. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant, Stella Rodifer, was convicted of forgery, a felony; six counts of worthless checks under $500.00, misdemeanors; and one count of worthless checks over $1,000.00, a felony. The defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of two and four years, respectively, on each of the felonies. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 11 months and 29 days on each misdemeanor, two of which were ordered to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of seven years, 11 months, and 27 days. The trial court granted probation on the misdemeanors and sentenced the defendant to a Community Corrections program on the felonies. Four months later, the trial court revoked the alternative sentences and ordered the defendant to serve four years for forgery; eight years for felony worthless checks; and 11 months and 29 days (two consecutive) for each of the six counts of worthless checks, for an effective sentence of 13 years, 11 months, and 27 days. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by revoking her alternative sentences and by imposing lengthier, consecutive sentences. The judgments are affirmed.