COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Tracy L. Fry
E1999-02758-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
Tracy Fry, the Defendant and Appellant, pled guilty to driving under the influence, second offense. With the State's and trial court's agreement, however, she specifically reserved the right to appeal a dispositive question of law pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(1). The issue reserved for review is whether Officer Kyte "had reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts, to approach and subsequently seize the defendant leading to the arrest of the defendant." We conclude that the initial encounter between Officer Kyte and the Defendant was not a seizure, that the encounter provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention of the Defendant, and that sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant developed during the course of the brief investigatory detention. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Bruce Adams
E2000-00298-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant, Bruce Adams, appeals his convictions of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct and the manner of service of his effective six-month sentence. The trial court ordered ten days of confinement and probated the balance of the sentence. The resisting arrest conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, and we affirm that conviction and the sentence, including the confinement term. However, because we find insufficient evidence to support the disorderly conduct conviction, we reverse it and dismiss that charge.

State vs. James E. Harman, Jr.
E2000-00437-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In October of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one count of possession of less than .5 ounces of marijuana. His plea form indicated that he agreed to receive concurrent sentences of five and one-half years as a Range II, multiple offender for the former offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the latter. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the manner in which these sentences were to be served. At the conclusion of such hearing, the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentencing, and it is this denial that the defendant contests through his appeal. However, after having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find this contention to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.

State vs. James E. Harman, Jr.
E2000-00437-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

In October of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one count of possession of less than .5 ounces of marijuana. His plea form indicated that he agreed to receive concurrent sentences of five and one-half years as a Range II, multiple offender for the former offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the latter. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the manner in which these sentences were to be served. At the conclusion of such hearing, the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentencing, and it is this denial that the defendant contests through his appeal. However, after having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find this contention to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.

John E. Carter vs. Howard Carlton
E2000-00406-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
John E. Carter seeks the writ of habeas corpus. He claims that he is entitled to immediate release from his two 1981 convictions for the first degree murder of his grandparents. Carter alleges that he is being illegally restrained because he had inadequate notice of the charges against him, because the trial court excluded relevant evidence at his trial, and because the jury instructions given at his trial were flawed. We agree with the court below that these issues do not entitle Carter to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.

Michael Bailey vs. State
E2000-00432-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
A Sullivan County jury convicted the petitioner of one count of second degree murder involving the death of his son. For this offense the petitioner received a sentence of twenty years as a Range I, standard offender, and a $50,000 fine. He unsuccessfully brought a direct appeal challenging both his conviction and sentence. Subsequently, he filed a pro se post-conviction petition and was appointed counsel from the public defender's office. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court took this matter under advisement and later issued a detailed order dismissing the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner requested that his appointed attorney withdraw from the case and that he be allowed to bring his appeal pro se. The trial court granted this motion, and the petitioner now brings this appeal raising three issues. More specifically, he asserts that (1) the jury instructions, when viewed overall, effectively denied him "a fair trial and a reliable verdict;" (2) the State engaged in misconduct and denied him a fair trial by withholding exculpatory material; and (3) the prosecuting officer made the result of the petitioner's trial unreliable because the officer perjured himself. After reviewing these issues, we find that all have been waived and/or lack merit. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief.

State vs. Ricky Lee Netherton
E2000-01016-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Lillie Ann Sells
The defendant appeals his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, contesting the validity of the indictment and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Steve Jackson
E1999-02013-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz
A Knox County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated burglary. For this offense the trial court sentenced him to twelve years as a Range III, persistent offender. Through the instant appeal the defendant challenges both the validity of his convictions and his sentence. More specifically, he alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty; that the trial court did not appropriately carry out its role as the thirteenth juror; that the copies of prior convictions used to enhance his sentence were not properly certified; and that one of these prior convictions from another state should not have been utilized in sentencing because the State failed to prove that the offense would have been a crime in Tennessee. After reviewing the record, we find that these claims lack merit and, therefore, affirm the lower court's actions.

State vs. Charles Arnold Ballinger
E2000-01339-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb
On October 14, 1998, a Bradley County Grand Jury indicted Charles Ballinger, the defendant and appellant, for statutory rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on both counts. The court sentenced the defendant to serve two years for statutory rape concurrently with eleven months and twenty-nine days for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support a statutory rape conviction, (2) that the trial court should have suppressed a tape recording of a telephone conversation, (3) that the defendant's sentence was excessive, and (4) that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider mistake of fact as a defense. Because we find that statutory rape requires proof of at least a "recklessness" mens rea and that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider mistake of fact as a defense to statutory rape, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial.

State vs. Bobby Wells
E2000-01496-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb
A Monroe County jury convicted the defendant of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and of a separate offense involving the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine. For these crimes the trial court sentenced him to nine years and four years respectively as a Range I, standard offender. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with one another. Furthermore, the jury assessed the defendant a fifteen thousand dollar fine on each conviction. At a subsequent hearing the trial court denied his new trial motion and revoked his probation from previous offenses. Appealing these decisions, the defendant raises the following six issues: 1) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce transcripts of taped conversations allegedly transpiring between the defendant and informant when such transcripts were admitted through a police officer who neither heard nor electronically monitored the involved conversations; 2) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to play and introduce the aforementioned tapes through the same officer; 3) whether the State failed to prove chain of custody because it neither called the lab technician who placed the evidence in the vault at the crime laboratory nor complied with Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6); 4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the defendant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence involving the informant's motive for testifying against the defendant; 5) whether sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction; and 6) whether the defendant's probation revocation should stand when such was based upon the above-outlined new convictions and not the defendant's failure to report as was alleged in the probation violation warrant and when the convictions forming the basis for the revocation are allegedly not supported by sufficient evidence. After a review of the record, we find these claims to lack merit and, therefore, affirm the lower court's actions.

State vs. Susan Renee Whited
E1999-00493-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb
The Defendant pled guilty to eight counts of theft in Bradley and McMinn Counties. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to serve a total of seventeen years in prison and pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $212,284.00. Although the record is silent on the matter, the Defendant was apparently granted parole in 1997 and released. Although not apparent from the record, statements of counsel indicate that the Board of Parolees ordered the Defendant to pay $50.00 per month toward her restitution upon release. On July 30, 1999, the District Attorney General filed an application for garnishment in both counties in order to satisfy the restitution. The trial court temporarily stayed the garnishments pending briefing by both parties, but ultimately issued an order removing the stays in both counties on October 4, 1999. The Defendant appeals that order here. After a careful review of the record, we find that (1) the Defendant has failed to provide an adequate record for our review, (2) Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure does not authorize an appeal as of right from an order removing a stay of garnishment, and, (3) the court is without jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's claim that her sentence of restitution was void. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

State vs. Tony Allen Leonard
E1999-00971-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual battery, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court erred in allowing hearsay evidence, and the trial court erred in allowing the state to impeach the defendant on cross-examination with a prior felony conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

William Boyd vs. State
E1999-01279-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: William H. Inman
The petitioner, William Boyd, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Boyd alleges that his eight-year sentence for the offense of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, which is to be served at 100 percent, is illegal. We agree that the sentence is illegal and therefore reverse the trial court's dismissal of the post-conviction petition, vacate the conviction of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and the dismissal of the charge of aggravated rape, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Rongie Taylor vs. State
M2002-01780-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: James L. Weatherford
The post-conviction court denied the appellant's petition for post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to robbery with an agreed five-year sentence. In this appeal, the appellant argues: (1) his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and knowingly; and (2) his trial counsel failed to provide him effective assistance relating to the entry of his plea. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State vs. Wendell Lewis
W2001-03098-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.
When the defendant's status on community corrections was revoked, the trial court should have given the defendant credit for the time served in the community corrections program. We, therefore, reverse and modify the judgment of the trial court.

Slater Belcher vs. State
E1999-02287-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

Slater Belcher vs. State
E1999-02287-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

State vs. Roy Ray Wallace
E2000-00046-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Slone
The defendant appeals his convictions for burglary and theft of property valued at less than five hundred dollars. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in light of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, the admissibility of a recording of his co-defendant's testimony, and the length of his sentence. We affirm the convictions and sentences.

State vs. Robbie Carriger
E2000-00823-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
The state challenges the trial court's order placing the defendant, Robbie Carriger, on pretrial diversion based upon its finding that the prosecutor abused his discretion for failing to consider all the factors relevant to pretrial diversion in his written response denying diversion. The state contends that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the prosecutor's amended response to the application for pretrial diversion. We hold that the trial court properly refused to consider the prosecutor's amended response, but we reverse the trial court's automatic grant of pretrial diversion and remand the case for the trial court to consider the defendant's entitlement to pretrial diversion in light of the relevant factors.

State s. Anthony Lynn Wyrick
E1999-02206-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape and sentenced to concurrent terms of life without parole as a repeat violent offender. He challenges the sufficiency of the presentment, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of the victim's in-court identification of him as the attacker, the exclusion of evidence of a prior false accusation of rape by the victim, his inability to discover the victim's rape crisis center file, and the constitutionality of the repeat violent offender statute under which he was sentenced. Because the defendant should have been allowed to impeach the victim by cross-examining her about the prior false accusation of rape, we reverse the judgments of conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

State vs. Amy Boyd
E1999-02218-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
The defendant was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault. A Hawkins County jury found her guilty of one count and not guilty of the other. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon a thorough review of the record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault and that alternative sentencing was properly denied. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Treva Dianne Green
E1999-02204-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant appeals from her Blount County Circuit Court conviction and sentence for driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and 29 days in the Blount County Jail, all of which was suspended except for service of eight days incarceration. The jury imposed a fine of $1,500. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, that statements she made to the arresting officer should have been suppressed, that prosecutorial misconduct taints the verdict, that the jury should have been charged on reckless driving as a lesser-included offense, and that her sentence and fine are excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified.

J.Y. Sepulveda vs. State
E1999-02766-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle
This is an appeal from the denial of the appellant, J. Y. Sepulveda's petition for post-conviction relief on the grounds that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the pre-trial stage of the prosecution. Appellant also alleges that the trial judge erred in not allowing testimony at the post-conviction hearing concerning ineffective assistance of trial counsel during trial. We find that none of these issues constitute error and affirm the trial court's denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

State vs. Chris A. Jefferson
E2000-00429-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
Chris A. Jefferson appeals a certified question of law regarding a police officer's stop of him which resulted in his arrest for driving under the influence. Because we agree with the trial court that reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts existed for the stop, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Almeer Nance
E2000-00170-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
Following the transfer of his case from juvenile court, a Knox County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of premeditated murder, one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and two counts of theft over one thousand but under ten thousand dollars. Prior to trial the defendant filed an unsuccessful motion to suppress the statement he gave to authorities. The case proceeded to trial wherein the defendant was convicted as charged on seven of the aforementioned counts: more specifically, the jury found him guilty of the felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery offenses. For these crimes he received an agreed upon effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years in prison. He then filed a "Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial" alleging the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statement. After the denial of this motion, the defendant brought the instant appeal again raising the suppression issue. However, upon reviewing the record and applicable case law, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the defendant's statement.