APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant-Appellant, Bradley Hawks, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Crockett County to possession of less than .5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and fined $2,000. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Hawks attempted to reserve the following certified question of law: “Whether the search and arrest of the defendant was unconstitutional in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the [Tennessee] Constitution and the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” Because the certified question fails to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and therefore it is dismissed.

The Appellant-Defendant, Mitchell Garner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Garner as a violent offender to the maximum sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence because it misapplied two enhancement factors. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Sheila White Carlton, was indicted for one count of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony; one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor; and one count of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. A Gibson County Circuit Court jury subsequently acquitted Carlton of the burglary count, found her guilty of the theft count, and failed to reach a verdict on the assault count, which resulted in a mistrial on that
count. The trial court sentenced Carlton, whose prior criminal history included one conviction for vandalism, to eleven months and twenty-nine days probation after the service of sixty days in jail. On appeal, Carlton argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
 

The Petitioner, John Carroll Cook, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. He received a total effective sentence of twentyfive years to be served at one hundred percent. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Bedford County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Sheila Lott, for eight counts of criminal simulation, one count of theft over $1,000, and one count of fraudulent use of credit/debit card. Appellant pled guilty to all charges as set out in the indictments. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of eighteen years and six months. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in setting the length of her sentences within the range and in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly applied enhancement and mitigating factors and that Appellant has waived her issue regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences for failure to include an argument or cite to authority in her brief. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Petitioner, Rudolph Powers, of aggravated rape and robbery accomplished with a deadly weapon against the victims Vivian Brodie and Carol Boone, and the Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and twentyfive years respectively, which were to be served concurrently. A few months later, another Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Petitioner of aggravated rape against victim Kris Brewer, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty years of imprisonment. The Petitioner was ordered to serve his fifty-year sentence consecutively to his concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and twenty-five years. Following a direct appeal and several collateral appeals, which were unsuccessful, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction DNA analysis, which the post-conviction court denied. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction DNA analysis. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
 

The Lincoln County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Robert Dale Jarvis, for a total of twenty-one counts including aggravated burglary, theft over $500, theft over $1,000, and vandalism. Appellant pled guilty to two counts of theft over $500 and five counts of theft over $1,000. As a result of the guilty plea, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years to be served as a career offender at sixty percent. At the guilty plea hearing, the parties discussed the reservation of a certified question upon which Appellant wanted to appeal. On appeal, after a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Appellant has not properly preserved the certified question of law. Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The defendant, Willie Hall, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in jail and assessed a $500 fine. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude the 911 tape; (2) the trial court gave improper jury instructions on self-defense and flight; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect that the defendant is to serve sixty percent of his sentence.
 

The pro se petitioner, Yolanda D. Barefield, appeals the summary dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, she alleges that she entered an involuntary guilty plea due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we remand to the trial court for appointment of counsel and a hearing regarding the issue of whether the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to her guilty plea to felony escape.

Petitioner, Michael Hoover, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition in which Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the entry of his plea of guilty, and that his guilty plea was not voluntarily or knowingly entered. After a thorough review we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant Christopher J. Johnson pled guilty to selling marijuana and especially aggravated burglary. He was given an effective sentence of 8 years, suspended and to be served on probation. He was then charged with violating the terms of his probation. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered that the sentences be served in confinement. He appeals, arguing that revoking his probation in full was excessive. Upon review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Robert Lee Archibald, Jr., was charged with one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that the search warrant authorizing the search was defective. The Davidson County Criminal Court granted his motion. The State now appeals that grant. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Christopher Cannon, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his open guilty pleas to aggravated burglary and aggravated assault which resulted in two twelve-year sentences to be served consecutively. He claims trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to advise him that he could potentially avoid his two consecutive twelve-year sentences by exercising his right to a jury trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, David Franklin Henning, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of simple possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor, and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. He was subsequently sentenced as a career offender to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days and fifteen years. On appeal, he raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for tampering with evidence; and (2) whether he was inappropriately sentenced as a career offender. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Demetrius L. Lancaster, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school zone, being a convicted felon in possession of a weapon, and sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. He received an effective fourteen-year sentence, as a Range I, standard offender for these convictions, which sentence was to be served consecutively to a prior seventeen-year sentence. The Petitioner then filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition and subsequently entered an order denying relief. The Petitioner appeals. Because the record on appeal does not include a transcript of the evidentiary hearing in the post-conviction court, we conclude that the Petitioner has waived the issues argued on appeal. We must presume that the post-conviction court correctly denied post-conviction relief and, therefore, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court dismiss the petitioner’s appeal or, in the alternative, affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Arthur W. Stamey, III, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In this appeal, he contends that the coram nobis court erred by permitting two witnesses to testify for the State and by concluding that those witnesses were more credible than the petitioner. He also claims that the court erred by concluding that a letter of recantation written by the victim did not constitute newly discovered evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The defendant, Michael Hugo Brooks, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of DUI, third offense, and was sentenced by the trial court to 11 months, 29 days, with 120 days to serve in the county jail followed by probation. The sole issue the defendant raises in this appeal is whether the trial court committed plain error by denying his motion to suppress. Based on our review, we conclude that he has not shown the existence of plain error in the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Nathaniel Richardson, pled guilty to second degree murder in Shelby County and received a twenty-year sentence. At the guilty plea hearing, Appellant reserved the following certified questions of law for appeal pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure:
1) Whether the trial court erred by denying [Appellant’s] motion to suppress all the evidence taken from the trunk of the car that was seized by the police on September 13, 2004? Whether the seizure of the car from the parking lot where [Appellant] worked in the absence of a search warrant violated the U.S. Const. amend. IV and amend. XIV and Art. 1 § 7 and § 8 of the Tennessee Constitution and in violation of Rule 41 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; thereby[ ] requiring that the evidence taken from the trunk be suppressed? A search warrant was later signed on September 15, 2004[,] and the vehicle was searched. 2) Whether the trial court erred by determining that [Appellant] was legally competent to stand trial. We determine that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress where officers had probable cause to seize Appellant’s car. We decline to address Appellant’s remaining arguments regarding his statements to police, detention by police, and validity of the search warrant as they were not presented in the certified questions presented. Further, we determine that the issue regarding Appellant’s competency is not dispositive and, therefore, not a proper certified question. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Justin Michael Scott, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to vehicular assault and driving on a revoked license. He received a total effective sentence of three years, to be suspended after service of six months in the Knox County Jail. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s failure to grant a sentence of full probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Kevin McDougle, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, in case no. 06-04210. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twelve years. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentence in case no. 06-04210 consecutively to his effective sentence of thirty-two years in case nos. 06-04209 and 07-01739, for an effective sentence of forty-four years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct during the crossexamination of a witness for the defense; (2) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (3) the imposition of consecutive sentencing violates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

Following the warrantless search of his residence and adjoining property, the Defendant, Monty Blackwell, was charged by presentment from the Grainger County grand jury with manufacture of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia related to the manufacture of marijuana, possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver, theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, and theft of property valued at over five hundred dollars. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the warrantless entry onto his property. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion and suppressed the evidence. In this appeal as of right, the State contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. Following our review, we affirm the judgment ofthe trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant was found not guilty of violating the open container law, a Class C misdemeanor, and was found guilty of driving under the influence (seventh offense), a Class E felony. The trial court found that Defendant violated the implied consent law and revoked his driver’s license for one year. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to two years to be served on probation after serving one hundred and sixty days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Specifically, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he was driving on a public road at the time of the incident or a finding that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.