APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Terry Byington, appeals his convictions by a jury in the Sullivan County Criminal Court for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, a Class E felony; driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor; and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court merged the DUI convictions and sentenced the Defendant to four years for DUI and to six months for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently, for an effective four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this delayed appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to recuse herself because she had formerly prosecuted the Defendant. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Joseph Benjamin Comer, IV, was convicted in the Loudon County Criminal Court on his guilty plea of reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor, for which he received an eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence on probation. At issue in this appeal is the amount of restitution for damages caused by his crime. We affirm the judgment in part and remand the case to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting that restitution is to be paid in monthly installments of $200.

The Defendant, William J. Wilson, pled guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive sentences of six years, one year to be served in prison and the remainder to be served on probation. After a warrant was filed, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated his probation by dating, befriending, residing or uniting with someone who had children under the age of eighteen, because the Defendant has filed for a marriage license with a woman who had “several” children under the age of eighteen. The trial court ordered the Defendant returned to probation for ten years and required that he not have any contact with his fiancé, including telephone contact. The Defendant appealed, contending: (1) that the condition of probation requiring he not date or befriend a person with minor children had not been articulated to him by the trial court, as required by statute, and, further, is unconstitutional; and (2) that the condition that he refrain from telephone contact with his fiancé is unconstitutional. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I join in the results reached by the majority insofar as we do not have an adequate record in which to review the particulars of the Defendant’s case. I write separately to express my concern that the probation rule in question, if applied to all probationers, offends due process. The rule prohibits contact or association with any adults who have minor children. The breadth of such a prohibition is problematic and the relationship of the prohibition to the goals of probation is questionable.

The Defendant, Xavier Tyrone Nolan, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction into the aggravated assault conviction and sentenced the Defendant to a Range I sentence of five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, James Nelson, was convicted of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, as a lesser included offense of the indicted offense of aggravated assault. He was sentenced, as a Range III, persistent offender, to six years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The Defendant, Ronald Lee Stewart, appeals as of right from his convictions in the Marshall County Circuit Court for one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, one count of theft of property valued at less than five hundred dollars, a Class A misdemeanor, and one count of theft of property valued between one thousand and ten thousand dollars, a Class D felony. The Defendant received an effective sentence of twelve years to be served in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant claims that his convictions are constitutionally infirm due to juror fatigue and that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a persistent offender. Following our review, we conclude that the Defendant failed to prepare an accurate record of the subject of this appeal and his issues are waived. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, Nakomis Jones, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner, Augustine J. Leon, pled guilty to evading arrest and reckless endangerment, both Class E felonies, and eleven other misdemeanor traffic offenses. The Petitioner received an effective sentence of two years as a Range I, standard offender, to be served in the Department of Correction consecutively to a previously imposed sentence of three years, for a total effective sentence of five years. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition attacking his convictions and sentence based upon his alleged mental incompetence at the time of the guilty plea, failure of the State and the trial court to disclose his mental illness, and the failure of trial counsel to seek a mental evaluation prior to the entry of his guilty pleas. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner argues that due process concerns necessitated tolling the statute of limitations for filing his petition, and therefore the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Michelle Bishop, pleaded guilty in the Sullivan County Circuit Court to three counts of theft of property valued at $500 or less, one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, two counts of identity theft, two counts of forgery, and one count of failure to appear in exchange for an effective sentence of five years with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The trial court ordered a fully incarcerative sentence, and the defendant now appeals, claiming she should have been granted probation or other alternative sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Ronald Stephen Blodgett, entered an open plea of guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to the offense of driving after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have ordered that he serve his sentence in community corrections. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Reginald Marcel Gibbs, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and felon in possession of a handgun, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to fifteen years as a Range II offender on the aggravated robbery conviction; eleven months, twenty-nine days on the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction; and five years as a Range III offender on the felon in possession of a handgun conviction. The court ordered that the fifteen and five-year sentences be served consecutively for an effective term of twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After the entry of a best-interest plea to felony child abuse, a Fentress County trial court denied judicial diversion for Appellant, Alfred Gene Bullock. The trial court sentenced Appellant to three years as a Range I, standard offender. Appellant appeals the denial of judicial diversion. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court considered the factors required for the grant or denial of judicial diversion and did not abuse its discretion in denying judicial diversion to Appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Jasper Lee Vick, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that we affirm the lower court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that his convictions are void or his sentences illegal, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

The Defendant, Donald Ragland, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. He was sentenced to life, with the possibility of parole, in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to police; (2) the trial court erred in excluding a certified copy of a traffic citation received by the Defendant’s alibi witness; and (3) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Monolito B. Cooper, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his 1999 and 2002 sentences have expired due to the application of certain pretrial jail credits. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to express the views (1) that the statutes proscribing child abuse and child neglect are needlessly complex and (2) that our controlling case law does not invite helpful application of the child abuse statute by applying the “knowing” scienter to “treating a child in an abusive manner.” (Emphasis added.)

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Bernard Braswell, of second degree murder and aggravated child abuse, both Class A felonies. The Defendant appeals, arguing that  (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) he was prejudiced by the manner in which a transcript of one of the Defendant’s interviews with police—a transcript which was admitted into evidence for identification only—was redacted. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, George Timmons, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts of rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, one count of assault, and one count of aggravated domestic assault. The Defendant received an effective sentence of life without parole as a multiple rapist. In this appeal as of right, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life without parole as a multiple rapist and in enhancing his other sentences beyond the presumptive minimum. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Cedric Jeffries, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The Defendants, Derrell F. Nunn, Sr. and Jamila Nunn, appeal from their convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Hamilton County for aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years to be served at one hundred percent for each Defendant. On appeal, the Defendants contend that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict them and that the trial court erred in not granting their motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm the judgments of conviction.

The Defendant, Jessica Patton Parks, pled guilty to aggravated domestic assault in exchange for a three-year suspended sentence to be served on supervised probation. Following the filing of a revocation warrant and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of her probation and ordered her to serve her sentence in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve her sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.