COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

Talley vs. State
03C01-9702-CR-00063
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State vs. Brown, F .
03C01-9701-CR-00034
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State vs. Ricky Fuller
02C01-9710-CR-00393

State vs. Rice
03C01-9707-CR-00252
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

Collier vs. State
03C01-9710-CR-00464

State vs. O'Malley
03C01-9704-CC-00119

State vs. Padgett
03C01-9704-CR-00138

State vs. Drinnon
03C01-9708-CR-00347
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Jefferies vs. Bowlin & State
03C01-9708-CC-00345

State vs. Brian Hunter
02C01-9708-CR-00309
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Brian Hunter
02C01-9708-CR-00309
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Anthony Richardson
02C01-9605-CR-00140
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

State vs. Derrick Means
02C01-9707-CR-00248
Trial Court Judge: John P. Colton, Jr.

State vs. William Parker
02C01-9711-CC-00432

Address The Parole Eligibility Jury Instruction. In State v. King, ____ S.W.2D ____
01C01-9704-CC-00158
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. James Nichols
01C01-9704-CR-00158
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. Gary Prude
02C01-9711-CR-00425

State vs. Robert Taylor
02C01-9805-CC-00161

State vs. Michael Martin
02C01-9804-CC-00101

State vs. Ramsey
03C01-9708-CR-00361
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller

State vs. Franklin
03C01-9706-CR-00219
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

State vs. Robinson
03C01-9710-CR-00430
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

State vs. Creekmore
03C01-9712-CR-00535

State vs. Don Carter
02C01-9711-CC-00424

State of Tennessee vs. Charlene Hardison - Concurring/Dissenting
01C01-9705-CC-00196
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

I concur with a ll portions of Judge Lafferty’s op inion with the exception of the portion that reduces the period of confinem ent from six (6) months to ninety (90) days. I might agree with that ultimate result after a specific finding of facts by the trial court following the dictates of the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. However, it is my opinion that the more appropriate disposition of this particular case is to remand it back to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing which follows the specific requirements of the A ct. See State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581, 584-85 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) and cases cited therein.