APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The sole issue in this capital post-conviction appeal is whether the State improperly withheld material, exculpatory evidence at the appellee's capital sentencing hearing. The appellee was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death in 1985, and in 1991, he filed a post-conviction petition alleging, among other things, that the State improperly withheld a police report that was discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The post-conviction court denied relief, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and vacated the capital sentence. Finding that the police report was exculpatory and material, the intermediate court held that a new sentencing hearing was constitutionally required. The State then appealed to this Court. For the reasons given herein, we hold that the State improperly withheld the police report, which was both "evidence favorable to the accused" and material as to the issue of sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals vacating the appellee's sentence, and we remand this case to the Shelby County Criminal Court for a new capital sentencing hearing.

The Defendant, John Ruff, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of the charges against him. He asks this Court to enter an order dismissing his case with prejudice. We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the charges against the Defendant without prejudice; thus, we affirm the action of the trial court.

I concur with the majority’s rationale that led to the conclusion that the charges were properly dismissed below without prejudice. However, I also agree with the majority’s statements about the unavailability of a Rule 3 appeal in this case. Because no appeal as a matter of right is
availed to the defendant under Rule 3, I would conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s issue with respect to the dismissal of charges without prejudice. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). Although the practical result is the same in that the action of the trial court is not being reversed, I would dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his “petition to correct illegal judgment/sentence.” Finding no basis for a rightful appeal or a discretionary appeal via the common law writ of certiorari, we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Donald Craig Miller, pled guilty to burglary, Class D felony, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement wherein he was to receive a sentence of four (4) years, with the manner of the service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court following the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the four-year sentence, but ordered three and one-half years incarceration, followed by service of four years in Community Corrections in a "split-confinement" sentence. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a "Motion for Clarification of Judgment Order" which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. The Defendant filed a notice of appeal. We hold that this matter should be treated as a petition for common law writ of certiorari rather than a Rule 3, T.R.A.P. appeal, and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for relief from his conviction for aggravated child abuse, arguing that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not present during voir dire; and, (3) he was denied his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. After the post-conviction court denied his petition, the petitioner appealed to this court. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

The defendant, Parker Odell Doney, Jr., appeals his convictions for one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault and his sentences totaling fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court erred in sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record, we reduce the aggravated assault sentences but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Hagan Paul Roberts (herein petitioner) appeals the dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The petitioner claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call two witnesses to testify at the trial. The trial Court found that the petitioner did not inform his trial counsel of these witnesses and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial Court.

A Cheatham County jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated burglary and theft for breaking into his neighbor's home and stealing two television sets, a VCR, and a computer. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years for the aggravated burglary count and as a career offender to twelve years for the theft count, with the sentences to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; the failure of the trial court to order a mistrial based on testimony alluding to the defendant's criminal past; and the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the crime of accessory after the fact on the theory that it is a lesser-included offense of both indicted offenses. Finding the evidence sufficient and no other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.