APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant-Appellant, Phillip G. Harris, pled guilty to aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, in the Circuit Court for Coffee County. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a violent offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The judgment order did not impose lifetime community supervision following the expiration of Harris' sentence as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-524. Consequently, the State filed a motion to amend the judgment order. The trial court entered a corrected judgment order that imposed lifetime community supervision. On appeal, Harris challenges the validity of his guilty plea and the constitutionality of the lifetime supervision statute. The State contends this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not provide for an appeal as of right. Upon review, we agree with the State and dismiss Harris' appeal.

The petitioner, Demario Tabb, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective life sentence without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that counsel was ineffective by failing to remain with the petitioner after a failed proffer session to ensure that he was escorted back to his cell in light of the fact that the petitioner gave an incriminating statement to police after counsel left. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Kevin McDougle, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was subsequently sentenced to consecutive sentences of twelve years for the robbery and six years for each assault, resulting in an effective sentence of twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges only the imposition of consecutive sentences, specifically contending that the court erred in relying upon his juvenile record to establish that he was an offender whose record of criminal activity was extensive. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences as imposed.

The defendant, Daniel Lopez, was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, Class A felonies. He was sentenced to life for each murder conviction and to twenty-five years for each especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively for a total effective sentence of life plus fifty years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in: denying his request to give a jury instruction for accomplice testimony; sustaining the State's objection to testimony of a co-defendant; granting the State's motion to have an anonymous jury; denying his motion for a mistrial; and instructing the jury to disregard a question from defense counsel during cross-examination. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Newt Carter, of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to twenty years at 100% for aggravated rape consecutive to five years at 30% for aggravated burglary, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant by misapplying enhancement factors and ordering the defendant to serve the sentences consecutively. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Dominic Delvekio Carter, was convicted of three counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of theft of property under $500. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple rapist to an effective sentence of fifty years at 100% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, David Jones Milton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Vincent Byron Rose, appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation and ordering that he serve his sentence in confinement. Discerning no error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Timothy Dell Hilton, was convicted by a Cumberland County jury of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He received an eight-year sentence for the aggravated kidnapping conviction, and a concurrent, three-year sentence for aggravated assault conviction. On appeal, Hilton claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Patrick Trawick, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of premeditated first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault related to the death of his estranged girlfriend and the aggravated assault of her companion. The jury found life without the possibility of parole to be the appropriate sentence for the premeditated first degree murder count. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent six year sentences for the two aggravated assault counts to be served consecutively to the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to recuse itself, (2) ruling admissible for impeachment purposes the Defendant's prior rape conviction, (3) admitting crime scene photographs of the victim's body, and (4) failing to instruct the jury regarding all lesser included offenses for premeditated first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Danurico Dujuan Grundy, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Circuit Court for Dickson County. On November 17, 2005, he pled guilty to theft under $500, a Class A misdemeanor, and five counts of uttering a forged instrument under $1,000, a Class E felony. Grundy received an effective sentence of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and was ordered to pay $26.50 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund and $546.50 in court costs. On appeal, Grundy claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentences of confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Kimberly Ann Ross, appeals from the Bedford County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief from her guilty plea to first degree murder and her life sentence. In her appeal, the Petitioner argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel coerced her into pleading guilty to first degree murder and failed to adequately prepare her case, investigate witnesses, and defend her. She also contends that she was unable to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision to enter her guilty plea because she was under the influence of certain medications. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The State appeals the Chester County Circuit Court's decision to order pretrial diversion for the Defendant-Appellee, Terry Rainey. Rainey was indicted for reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, Class C and D felonies. The State claims it properly appealed as of right under Rule 3(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Alternatively, the State asserts the circumstances of this case warrant review as an extraordinary appeal under Rule 10(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon review, we hold that the State cannot appeal the trial court's decision to order pretrial diversion under Rule 3(c). We also decline review under Rule 10(a). Accordingly, the State's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, William George Soller, Jr., was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, a Class E felony. The Defendant pled guilty to violation of the implied consent law (Count 2) and driving on a revoked license (Count 3), both Class A misdemeanors. Following a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a multiple offender to forty months to serve at 35% for the DUI conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, suspended to five days and the remainder on supervised probation for Count 2, and eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, suspended to forty-five days and the remainder on supervised probation for Count 3. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently to one another but consecutively to sentences imposed in a separate case. In his appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for DUI, and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant as a Range II offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgment but conclude that the trial court improperly classified the Defendant as a Range II offender. Accordingly, we remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, William George Soller, Jr., appeals from his Sevier County Circuit Court jury convictions of felony reckless endangerment, reckless aggravated assault, fourth offense driving under the influence ("DUI"), and leaving the scene of an accident. In this appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by refusing his request for a change of venue; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to excuse a potential juror for cause; (3) the trial court erred by refusing to permit the testimony of an expert witness for the defense; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for felony reckless endangerment and DUI; (5) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; (6) the trial court should have dismissed one count of the indictment as duplicitous; and (7) the trial court erred by classifying the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender for sentencing purposes. After a review of the record, we affirm the defendant's convictions but vacate the defendant's sentences on the felony convictions of reckless aggravated assault and fourth offense DUI and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

The petitioner, Tommy Ray Young, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, both the petitioner and the State argue that the postconviction court erred by dismissing the petition without a hearing. We agree. Accordingly the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed, and the case is remanded for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

The Defendant-Appellant, Daryl Powell, appeals from the Sequatchie County Circuit Court's order denying his motion to determine the conditions and status of his probation and requiring him to provide a blood sample to the DNA database, which was entered more than four years after he was sentenced for his conviction for incest, a Class C felony. In his appeal, Powell argues that he complied with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-321 when he submitted a blood sample to the DNA database during the investigation of the charges against him in this case. Upon review, we conclude that Powell does not have an appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

A Washington County jury convicted the defendant, Richard Dean Nance, of two counts of rape of a child and one count of incest. He appeals his convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law and that the trial court erred by permitting into evidence a prior conviction of one of his key witnesses. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jerry Timberlake, appeals the Henderson County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence, we conclude that the State's motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief.

The Defendant-Appellant, Dwight Shankle, was convicted by a McMinn County jury of manufacture of methamphetamine under 0.5 grams, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a multiple offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and assessed a $25,000 fine. On appeal, he claims the insufficiency of the evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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.