APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In 1992, the defendant, Michael Fields, was convicted of two counts of sale of cocaine; the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eight years in community corrections. In 1993, the defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell; the trial court imposed an additional sentence of eight years in community corrections and ordered it to be served concurrently with the 1992 sentences. In February of 1997, the trial court revoked the community corrections sentences and ordered the defendant to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Department of Correction. In May of 1997, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession with intent to sell less than one-half gram of cocaine; the trial court imposed a sentence of three years, consecutive to his prior sentences, for an effective sentence on all offenses of 11 years, and granted probation. On July 1, 1998, a probation violation warrant was filed in all three cases. The defendant was ordered to serve 30 days of periodic confinement for the violations. On August 1, 1999, another probation violation warrant, which was later amended, was served on the defendant. Ultimately, probation in all three cases was revoked. In this appeal of right, the defendant complains that he had completed his sentence and the trial court had no authority to revoke probation. In the alternative, the defendant argues that if the sentence had not been completed, he should have been returned to intensive probation. The judgments are affirmed.

The defendant entered a best interest guilty plea to aggravated burglary for an agreed sentence of three years as a Range I standard offender, with the potential for alternative sentencing left to the discretion of the trial court, and a misdemeanor theft count was dismissed. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the defendant filed a motion to set aside his plea pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(f), claiming he unknowingly entered it. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded the plea was knowingly entered and denied the defendant's request for alternative sentencing. In this appeal, the defendant claims the trial court erred (1) by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and (2) by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except for the failure to charge the lesser included offense. Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the failure to charge reckless homicide was error, I would find the failure to charge the lesser offense harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Defendant, Jerry W. Jordan, was convicted of second degree murder in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to twenty-two years of imprisonment. In his appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the Defendant’s Due Process and Equal Protection rights were violated when the State excluded four African-American jurors, (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense, and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to twenty-two years.  We reverse the Defendant’s second degree murder conviction due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense to first degree murder.

The defendant, Timothy Clark Newson, appeals from his conviction for aggravated kidnapping, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Following a trial, a Hamilton County jury convicted the defendant of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) his sentence was excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant of misdemeanor theft of property, and the trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days of incarceration. The judgment of the trial court specified that the Defendant must serve seventy-five percent of the sentence prior to eligibility for work release, furlough, trusty status, and rehabilitative programs. The Defendant now appeals, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence that was imposed. Finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was properly imposed, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.