APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree and the sentence of death imposed by the jury.1 This opinion is delivered in two parts, with a separate opinion addressing Part II.
In Part I of this opinion we address the following issues:

(1) Admission of evidence regarding his escape attempts;
(2) Shackling of his feet and hands;
(3) Prohibition of mitigation evidence at sentencing;
(4) Admission of his statement to police;
(5) Propriety of the prosecutor’s closing argument;
(6) Unconstitutionality of the death penalty; and
(7) Proportionality of sentence of death.

After careful review, we affirm the conviction for murder in the first degree.  In Part II of this opinion, Judge Williams sets forth his minority position on the following issues:

(1) Application of the (i)(2) aggravating factor in the imposition of the death penalty; and (2) Cumulative effect of errors.

The position of the majority on the issues addressed in Part II is set forth in the separate opinion filed by Judge Witt, in which Judge Hayes has joined. The majority concludes that the verdict is enigmatic and uncertain, requiring reversal of the sentence of death and re-sentencing.

This separate opinion addresses issues relative to the sentencing phase of the trial, as well as the defendant’s cumulative error issue. Expressed herein are the views of the majority, consisting of Judge Hayes and Judge Witt. The minority view of Judge Williams is expressed in his lead opinion.

Indicted for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual battery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping, the defendant entered negotiated pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping.  The remaining charges were dismissed. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to 12 years for the robbery, 25 years for each of the rapes, and 25 years for the kidnapping. The rape sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to one another and to the robbery sentence, for an effective sentence of 62 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that one of the aggravated rape convictions and the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction violate due process. He asserts that his sentences are excessive and should not have been ordered to be served consecutively. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Brenda Redwine, after pleading guilty to possession of Schedule II drugs and simple possession of marijuana, properly reserved a certified question of law for our review. The Johnson County Criminal Court denied her motion to suppress a search warrant that was issued on January 6, 1999. The defendant asserts, by certified question of law, that the search warrant was not properly issued because the affidavit that was the basis for the warrant contained material misrepresentation by the officer. After review, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress.

The Petitioner was indicted for three counts of aggravated robbery and convicted by a Davidson County jury of one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of seventeen years, and on direct appeal, this Court modified his sentence to an effective sentence of fifteen years. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorneys failed to challenge two of his indictments prior to trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief, and the Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of relief. We hold that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Gregory Hatton, sought post-conviction relief on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective, that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary, and that his sentence is illegal. The trial court concluded that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. Insofar as an illegal sentence is subject to correction at any time, the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's illegal sentence claim was erroneous. Because, however, the petitioner is not entitled to relief on that claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner was originally convicted by a Carroll County jury of the sale of a controlled substance.  The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this appeal as a matter of right, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied post-conviction relief.

On April 30, 1996, the petitioner, Alan Hall, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, theft over $1000, and possession of burglary tools. The petitioner received a total effective sentence of life plus twelve years. Subsequently, on September 15, 1999, the trial court entered an order correcting the petitioner's judgment of conviction for especially aggravated robbery to reflect that the petitioner would serve one hundred percent (100%) of his sentence in confinement instead of thirty percent (30%) as was erroneously reflected on the original judgment. Within a year after the entry of the corrected judgment, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as being barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the petitioner contests the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Darryl A. Larkins, of two counts of aggravated rape, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of attempted aggravated rape, and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve an effective sentence of fifty-years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of aggravated rape and attempted aggravated rape; 2) whether the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions were obtained contrary to Tennessee law in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991); and 3) whether the Defendant was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and a fair and impartial jury, regardingthe aggravated burglary conviction. The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing on the offense of attempted aggravated rape.