APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

On May 11, 2009, the Defendant, Ricky Lee Cook, pleaded guilty to Class D felony evading arrest and driving under the influence ("DUI"), third offense. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received a sentence of eleven-months and twenty-nine days at 75% to serve for the DUI conviction and a sentence of three years at 30% to be probated for the felony evading arrest conviction. These sentences were consecutive terms. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Sumner County Criminal Court denied the motion. The Defendant now appeals, contending that this denial was error. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Mario Antwan Fulgham, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for facilitation of first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The Petitioner argues that he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel committed ineffective assistance in failing to pursue defenses of intoxication or diminished capacity and in failing to advise the Petitioner of his right of allocution at sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Anthony Levail Newsom, was convicted of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine for resale, and an eight-year sentence was imposed. The appellant was granted probation. However, the trial court subsequently found that the appellant violated the terms of his release, revoked the appellant's probation, and ordered him to serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and in ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement instead of on community corrections. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Willie James Krisle, was convicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court of two counts of the sale of less than .5 grams of a substance containing cocaine, see Tenn. Code Ann. _ 39-17-417(c)(2)(A), and he received a total effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, specifically contending that there was insufficient evidence corroborating the testimony of his accomplice, co-defendant Robert Hargrove. Upon review, we affirm the appellant's convictions.

The Warren County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Andy McAmis, for one count of aggravated assault in connection with a fight. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eight years as a Range II, standard offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and to rebut his assertion of the affirmative defense of self-defense; the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; and the trial court erred in admitting inflammatory photographs. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in denying the mistrial or allowing the photographs into evidence. However, there is a mistake on the judgment form identifying Appellant as a Range I offender instead of a Range II offender. Therefore we affirm Appellant's conviction but remand for correction of the judgment.

The Defendant, James G. Coons, pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, contending the trial court did not adequately consider his mental health as a mitigating factor in his punishment. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. As such, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to death for each murder conviction. He received consecutive twenty-five year sentences for the especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004). The Appellant subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court. He now appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues numerous violations of his constitutional rights during his trial proceedings, including denial of the effective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Adam D. Sluder, pled guilty to theft over $500, two counts of violating the sexual offender registration law, six counts of statutory rape, and felony failure to appear, all Class E felonies. The Defendant received a two-year sentence for each offense as a Range I, standard offender with the failure to appear sentence to be served consecutively, for an effective four-year sentence. The trial court denied the Defendant's request to serve his sentence on probation or in community corrections. The Defendant appeals the trial court's decision, contending that confinement is an improper punishment given the nature of the offenses, his criminal history, and his rehabilitation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Harold James Greenleaf, Jr., appeals from the order of the trial court denying his petition requesting forensic DNA analysis. Upon his plea of guilty in 2000, the Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to forty years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner seeks DNA testing of evidence related to the investigation and prosecution. After our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the Rutherford County Circuit Court.

The Appellant, Lori Michelle Waller, appeals following the revocation of her probation. The Appellant admitted her violation of probation. In her brief, the Appellant alleges that her term of split confinement has been served. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the decision of the lower court. After review of the pleadings and record before this Court, we conclude that the State's motion is well-taken. Accordingly, the action of the lower court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Joe Maine, was convicted of the 1997 first degree murder of Amy Lynn King and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The Defendant waived a jury determination of his sentence, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and a concurrent twenty-five year sentence for the conspiracy conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends, relative to his first degree murder conviction, that (1) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his statement; (2) the trial court erred in declining to declare a mistrial when inadmissible photographs were published to the jury; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to use the actual skull of the victim as an exhibit for demonstrative purposes; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (5) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant; and (6) the trial court erred in not granting a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 1985, a jury found the petitioner, David W. Dunn, guilty of first degree murder. He received a life sentence. In his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner contended that the judgment against him was void because the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose a life sentence with a thirty percent release eligibility. The habeas corpus court denied relief and remanded the case to the Criminal Court of Davidson County for entry of a corrected judgment. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the petitioner failed to timely file his notice of appeal and that his claims do not warrant consideration in the "interest of justice." Therefore, we dismiss his appeal.

The defendant, Cassandra Hendricks Franklin, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In a timely appeal to this court, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction and that the trial court erred by denying defense counsel's motion to withdraw from representation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Chase Courtland Powell, of one count of theft and one count of robbery. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and that the convicting evidence was legally insufficient to support his robbery conviction. We hold that the evidence supports his robbery conviction, but we note that the judgments of conviction reflect sentences for both theft and robbery in contravention of the protections against double jeopardy. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction judgment for theft is vacated, and the jury's guilty verdict for the theft is merged into the judgment of conviction of robbery. The defendant's robbery sentence is affirmed, and we remand solely for the correction and entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with this opinion.

Appellant, John W. Couch, was indicted by the Franklin County Grand Jury for one count of cruelty to animals. After a guilty plea, Appellant was sentenced by the trial court to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Class A misdemeanor. The trial court ordered Appellant to spend forty-five days in incarceration and the balance of the sentence on supervised probation "until all requirements [are] met." The trial court also required Appellant to pay a $1,000 fine and perform 50 hours of community service as part of his sentence. The trial court denied a motion for new trial and/or reduction of sentence. Appellant appeals, arguing that he was improperly sentenced. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect Appellant's eligibility for work release.

A jury found the defendant, Perry Avram March, guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder and two counts of solicitation to commit first degree murder. The trial court merged the solicitation counts into the conspiracy count and entered a judgment for conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The court sentenced the defendant to twenty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether a fatal variance existed between the evidence presented at trial and the allegations in count one of the indictment; (2) whether solicitation to commit first degree murder is protected speech under the First Amendment; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial; (4) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's discussions about express kidnappings in Mexico; (5) whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury concerning the mens rea for the discrete elements of conspiracy to commit a homicide; (6) whether the trial court's instruction of criminal responsibility permitted the jury to impute the conduct of another to the defendant; (7) whether the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's request to instruct the jury that they could not convict the defendant of more than one offense; (8) whether the defendant's sentence is excessive; and (9) whether the Sixth Amendment requires that the facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant, and (10) whether the cumulative effect of the errors during the defendant's trial violated his due process guarantees. After a thorough review of the record, the parties' briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, James Paul Kinard, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for each Class A felony conviction and twelve years for the Class B felony conviction. The sentences for the Class A felonies were ordered to be served consecutively, and the sentence for the Class B felony was to be served concurrently for an effective seventy-five-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the victim's prior allegations of abuse were inadmissible; and the defendant was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

The State appeals the grant of Petitioner James Alvin Castleman’s petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in finding that the statute of limitations should be tolled for due process reasons. We agree with the State and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and reinstate the judgment of conviction.

The defendant, Timothy Allen Sumner, appeals from the order of the Criminal Court of Sullivan County revoking his probation. On appeal, he claims that the evidence supported neither the trial court's revocation of probation nor the resulting order that he serve his sentence in confinement. Upon our review, we affirm the order of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Phyllis Ann McBride, was convicted by a jury of the first degree murder of her husband and was sentenced to life in prison. She appealed her conviction, and this court affirmed. State v. Phyliss Ann McBride, No. 01C01-9606-CC-00269, Rutherford County (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 24, 1997). The Petitioner's subsequent petition for post-conviction relief was denied, and this court affirmed. Phyllis McBride v. State, No. M2000-00034-CCA-R3-CD, Rutherford County (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2001). The Petitioner now appeals pro se the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of her petition seeking a writ of error coram nobis, post-conviction relief, and "DNA Pathological and Toxicological Analysis." We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus attacking his 1991 convictions for twenty-one counts of rape; two counts of first degree burglary; two counts of aggravated burglary; one count of second degree burglary; one count of aggravated rape; one count of assault with intent to commit rape; and one count of robbery. Following his convictions, the Petitioner initially received an effective sentence of life plus 415 years, which was later modified to life plus 195 years on appeal. State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). A petition for post-conviction relief was denied by the trial court, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2002-02124-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 23014683 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2003). Two separate petitions for a writ of habeas corpus were summarily dismissed by the trial court, and their denials were affirmed on appeal. Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, No. M2006-01092-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 152233 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. April 16, 2007); Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2004-01378-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 544714 (Tenn. Crim. App. March 7, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 29, 2005). On March 15, 2008, the petitioner filed a third pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions on several grounds. The trial court dismissed his petition without the appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Raymond Stanley Hilliard, appeals from his Sullivan County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of facilitation of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine, two counts of the facilitation of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, two counts of the possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a legend drug, three counts of the possession of a schedule IV drug, possession of a schedule II drug, and maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances are used and sold. He argues that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the entirety of his agreed seven-year effective sentence in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Marcus D. Lee, appeals the summary dismissal of his “motion for delayed appeal and post-conviction relief,” claiming that he was deprived of the opportunity to seek appellate review of his convictions and sentences and that he is entitled to due process tolling of the statue of limitations. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion because the statute of limitations had expired and the petitioner failed to present an appropriate basis for tolling the statute of limitations. The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After careful review, we grant the motion of the State to affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court pursuant to Rule 20.

The petitioner, Jason Martindill, pled guilty to first degree murder on August 28, 2007, and received a life sentence. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not enter his guilty plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The post-conviction court denied relief. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Shelby County jury found the defendant guilty of carjacking, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years, six months, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) the trial court improperly weighed the enhancement and mitigating factors in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.