APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Larry Wade, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He asserts that the ineffective assistance of counsel and the unknowing and involuntary nature of his guilty pleas entitle him to relief from his convictions of attempted second degree murder and possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Melvin E. Beard, was convicted in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of the sale and delivery of less than .5 grams of crack cocaine, a class C felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fine of two thousand dollars ($2000). On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the portion of an audio tape recording of the drug transaction that occurred outside the presence of the appellant; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the appellant's motion for mistrial; and (4) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Deborah Louise Reese, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of life imprisonment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were neither voluntarily nor knowingly made. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. The petitioner now appeals this ruling. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

On September 25, 1998, the petitioner entered best interest pleas to four counts of child rape. For these offenses he received concurrent sixteen year sentences. According to the announced plea the convictions arising out of Pickett and Overton Counties were set to be served at thirty percent while the Putnam County convictions were at one hundred percent with the potential to be reduced to eighty-five percent. Within the statute of limitations the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered concerning the consequences thereof. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing and later denied the relief sought in the petition. It is from that denial that the petitioner brings the present appeal continuing to maintain that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After reviewing the record and applicable caselaw, we find that the sentences imposed are illegal and, therefore, reverse and remand the matter.

The defendant, Darlene Renee Blackhurst, pled guilty to second offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"), leaving the scene of an accident involving injury, and three counts of reckless aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days, to be served on intensive probation following a mandatory period of 45 days in confinement for the DUI second offense. In this appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred when it placed Defendant on full probation because the trial court failed to properly consider the victim's testimony during the sentencing hearing. Our de novo review reveals that the trial court did err in its application of the law concerning victims' statements and in granting probation for the full time remaining in Defendant's sentence following confinement. However, our conclusion regarding the impropriety of probation is based on sentencing considerations other than the testimony of the victim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment regarding the manner of service of Defendant's sentence and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Defendant should be incarcerated for the full term of her sentence or, in the alternative, serve the balance of her sentence in split confinement.