APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to second degree murder for which he received a sentence of 15 years. He contends his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, and he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The state contends the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude the petition was barred by the statute of limitations and is otherwise without merit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for theft of property valued less than $1000 but greater than $500, a Class E felony, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant was indicted for premeditated first degree murder, convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, and sentenced to 25 years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant alleges: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the state failed to provide him with exculpatory evidence; (3) the state destroyed evidence, thereby depriving him of due process; and (4) the trial court erroneously failed to grant a continuance or mistrial when a witness became ill and was unavailable to testify. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Tony Williams, appeals the trial court's denial of pretrial diversion after a petition for certiorari from the decision of the district attorney. In this discretionary appeal under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the single issue presented for review is whether the denial of pretrial diversion qualified as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The judgment denying relief is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted by a jury on one count of sale of marijuana, a Class E felony, and one count of possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the sale of marijuana conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted rebuttal testimony regarding an undisclosed, out-of-court statement made by the defendant; and (3) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on simple possession of marijuana as a lesser-included offense. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude (1) the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions; (2) the failure of the state to disclose the out-of-court statement made during the defendant's interrogation violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A); and (3) the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on simple possession of marijuana as a lesser-included offense. The conviction for sale of marijuana is reversed; the conviction for possession of cocaine is affirmed; and this matter is remanded for a new trial on the sale of marijuana.

The petitioner, Charles Mitchell, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder and resulting sentence of life without parole. First, he contends that his mental condition prevented him from knowingly and intelligently entering his guilty plea. Second, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense attorneys (1) did not seek to suppress statements that the petitioner gave to police soon after he murdered his wife; (2) did not use diminished mental capacity in his defense; (3) induced him to plead guilty by telling him that the state had filed a notice to seek the death penalty when no such notice had been filed; and (4) failed to request a more detailed mental evaluation of him. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

The Appellant, Billy Joe Henderson, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief without the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. Henderson is currently serving a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction pursuant to his 1998 conviction for first degree murder. Following a review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. Because Henderson in part states a "colorable claim," the case is remanded for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

The Appellant, Scott Bradley Price, was convicted of child rape, a class A felony, following a Knox County jury trial. The trial court sentenced Price, as a range I offender, to twenty-one (21) years in the Department of Correction. In his sole issue on appeal, Price argues that the trial court erred in the length of sentence because the mitigating factors outweighed the enhancement factors and, therefore, his sentence should have been reduced below the midpoint range of twenty (20) years. After a review of the record, we affirm the sentence of the trial court.

The petitioner, Oudon Panyanouvong, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. After the appointment of post-conviction counsel,the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney and ultimately refused to proceed with the evidentiary hearing. The issue is whether the trial court's summary dismissal was erroneous. Because the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to proceed pro se and was not specifically admonished of the perils of pro se representation, the judgment of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

J.D. Landers appeals from the Perry County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He seeks to set aside his conviction and guilty plea because he was not provided the effective assistance of counsel and did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently enter his guilty plea. Because the trial court properly dismissed the petition, we affirm.

Petitioner,Wayne Miles, appeals as of right from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner argues that he is being illegally detained because his convictions are void. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The petitioner, Bryan Hanley, was convicted by a jury in the Hickman County Circuit Court of one count of first degree murder and one count of theft of property over $1000. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the murder conviction and to three years incarceration for the theft conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur in the majority opinion, except I question whether a post-conviction petitioner has a right to self-representation at his or her will. In this respect, I view this court’s statements in Cole v. State, 798 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990), regarding a common law right to self-representation as dicta; self-representation was certainly not an issue in the appeal.