APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

The defendant, Judy K. Caruso, entered pleas of guilt to two counts of aggravated burglary and two counts of theft of property over $1,000. As a part of the plea agreement, the state agreed to dismiss two charges of possession of stolen property and one charge of misdemeanor vandalism. The defendant negotiated concurrent sentences of four years on the burglary convictions and two years on the theft convictions. The trial court denied a request for probation, ordered a 200-day jail sentence to be served day for day, and required the balance of the four-year sentence to be served in a Community Corrections program. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that she should have been granted an alternative sentence involving immediate release. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner's conviction for rape was affirmed on direct appeal. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed that he received inadequate assistance of counsel at his trial. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Henry Ford Williams, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court's revocation of his community corrections sentence. The trial court accepted the defendant's guilty pleas to Class B felony possession of cocaine for resale and to Class C felony possession of cocaine. On September 16, 1993, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years, with eleven months and 29 days to be served in local confinement and the balance to be served in community corrections. On February 18, 2000, the state filed a community corrections revocation warrant. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and revoked the defendant's community corrections placement. From that order, the defendant has appealed to this court. Upon our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the action of the trial court..

A Davidson County jury convicted the petitioner of two counts of child rape. For each of these offenses, he received a sentence of eighteen years, and the trial court ordered the sentences to be run consecutively. On direct appeal this Court modified the petitioner's sentences to sixteen and one half years each, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty-three years, but otherwise found the petitioner's claims merited no relief. Subsequently the petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Determining that the petitioner had raised a colorable claim, the trial court appointed counsel to represent him and later conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court filed an opinion denying the petition. From this denial the petitioner brings the instant appeal alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by inadequately advising the petitioner of the potential sentence he could receive should he elect to go to trial. However, following our review of the record, we find that the trial court correctly denied the petition, and we, therefore, affirm the lower court's decision.

The defendant appeals and asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of vandalism. Specifically, he contends that the State's evidence failed to prove the amount of damage beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a felony. After review, we hold that the trial court properly calculated the value of the amount of damages done by the defendant and that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for felony vandalism.

I must dissent from the holding of the majority opinion in this case for the following reasons:

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was violated by his multiple sentences. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that the judgments of conviction were facially valid. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition.

The defendant contends that the State should be barred from revoking his Community Corrections sentence because no detainer was placed on him while he served a six-year prison sentence in North Carolina while his revocation warrant was pending in Tennessee and the State knew of his location. We conclude that the State was under no obligation to file a detainer against the defendant, and that the State was not time barred from proceeding with the Community Corrections revocation after the defendant's return to this state. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals his conviction of the sale of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years, three months in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and imposed a $2000 fine. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and that his sentence is excessive and contrary to law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Noah J. Love, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct his sentence. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court properly denied relief. Because the trial court had no jurisdiction to amend the sentence four years after the defendant had been transferred to the Department of Correction, the judgment is reversed.