APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal of a denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner and two codefendants were each convicted of murder in the perpetration of robbery and of especially aggravated robbery for the robbery and killing of a man who had given them a ride in his car. The petitioner appealed her convictions to the post-conviction court, arguing, inter alia, that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by his failure to petition for a severance of trial from her codefendants. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding the petitioner's claims to be without merit. Based upon a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.

Defendant, Richard Crawford, was convicted at a bench trial of theft of a motor vehicle valued over $10,000. On appeal, the defendant raises the following two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for theft; and (2) whether the value of the vehicle was properly established. The judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Billy J. Grooms, appeals the trial court's denial of a pro se petition to correct an illegal judgment/sentence. The trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed.

Our law provides: “A person charged with an offense has no burden to prove his innocence.”  TENN.CODE ANN.§39-11-201(c). Because I am unable to disregard this most basic principle of law, I am also unable to affirm the judgment of conviction in this case.

The defendant appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction and sentence for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 37 years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient; that double jeopardy barred his retrial following the grant of a mistrial; that Jencks Act material, police reports, and arrest histories of state witnesses were improperly withheld; that he was not allowed to impeach a key witness in violation of his confrontation rights; that the trial court erred in ruling that his prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he testified; that the jury was improperly instructed; and that his sentence is excessive. We are unpersuaded that reversible error occurred and therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

The petitioner, Earnest L. White, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his habeas corpus/post-conviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, White asserts therein that ten of his 1984 convictions should be set aside because of constitutional infirmities in the process surrounding the entry of his guilty pleas for these offenses. As the issues raised provide no basis for habeas corpus relief but rather set out traditional post-conviction concerns, the trial court considered this pro se petition as one for post-conviction relief. However, the trial court thereafter found that the petition had been filed past the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, dismissed the petition. After a review of the record before this Court, we find that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years and two years, respectively, as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the attempted first degree murder presentment was defective; (2) the proof was insufficient to sustain his attempted first degree murder conviction; (3) the trial judge erroneously failed to satisfy his "thirteenth juror" role; and (4) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction; (3) the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors requires a new trial; and (4) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court.

The defendant, after having his authority to write bonds in the 30th Judicial District revoked, appeals the trial court's decision and asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the trial court's action was excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court in all respects.