APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Mohamed Iman, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to possession of a Schedule I drug with intent to deliver with the sentence length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Prior to being sentenced, the appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by (1) referring to the wrong standard in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and accepting an unknowing plea; (2) accepting the plea agreement when it failed to establish venue for the crime; (3) not personally and directly addressing the appellant during the guilty plea hearing; (4) refusing to give the appellant a community corrections sentence; and (5) failing to certify the interpreter. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Demond Lamont Adkins, of aggravated assault and carjacking. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 15 years at 60 percent for aggravated assault and 22 years at 45 percent for carjacking. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Jeremy Lance Przybysz, submitted a best interest guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970), to attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. The parties agreed to an eight-year sentence as a Range II offender with the manner of service to be determined by the court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve eight years in confinement. Claiming the trial court erroneously denied alternative sentencing, the defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

The petitioner, James Glenn Collins, Jr., appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals because the petition fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Upon our review of the petition and the applicable authorities, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant, Daryl Dewitt Godwin, pled guilty to theft of property over $60,000, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Jessie Hodges, was convicted of robbery and sentenced as a persistent offender to twelve years in incarceration. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Jessie Nelson Hodges, No. W2001-00871-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 927603, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 3, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 4, 2002). Petitioner unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. Jessie Hodges v. State, No. W2005-01852-CCA-R3-PC, 2006 WL 211829, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 25, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 30, 2006). Subsequently, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the Davidson County Chancery Court. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals. We determine that the habeas corpus court properly found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Kenneth Williams, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to second degree murder and received a sentence of thirty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. The sole issue for review on appeal is whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Hardeman County jury convicted the defendant, Anthony Phillip Geanes, of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple offender to three years imprisonment, consecutive to another sentence.1 In this appeal, the defendant raises the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. Upon review of the evidence, we are constrained  to hold that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty of reckless endangerment  with a deadly weapon. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the conviction  and dismiss the charge.

The Defendant, Nino Jones, was convicted by 1 a jury of one count of sale of cocaine, a Class C felony. In this direct appeal, he argues that the State failed to rebut his defense of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that this argument lacks merit, and accordingly affirm.

I write separately to set out unique factors used in my analysis concluding insufficient evidence  exists upon this record to support the defendant’s conviction of reckless endangerment. A notion widely held is that whenever people are arguing, participating in fisticuffs, or engaged in fights involving knives, bats, or chairs, the discharging of a firearm into the air has the immediate effect of alerting all participants that a higher and more powerful authority has been introduced into the situation and, therefore, the holder of the firearm is deserving of respect and attention. I feel this notion is misguided and outdated, and although I have found for this defendant, I do not wish to suggest that firing a weapon into the air is not reckless or is safe. Common sense tells us that what goes up must come down. I simply do not know where or with what force the bullet returns.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this matter. As I will explain, I believe that the cases relied upon by the majority are distinguishable upon the facts from those presented by the present appeal.

The defendant, Quamine Jones, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He argues that the evidence of premeditation was insufficient to support his conviction for first degree murder, the indictment should have been dismissed because he was denied a preliminary hearing, the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim and testimony of a witness regarding his reluctance to testify, and the State withheld exculpatory evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Eric Carter, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the court erred by denying his motion without holding an evidentiary hearing and claims he is entitled to relief based upon the ruling in State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007). Because the Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements for appealing the denial of a motion to reopen, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Willie R. Dyer was indicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant and driving with a blood alcohol level of over .08 percent. During the jury trial, the trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice on the basis that the chain of custody for the blood sample was inadequate. Subsequently, the State appealed. We determine that the trial court abused its discretion where the evidence was sufficient to establish chain of custody of the blood sample and, therefore, reverse and remand the judgment of the trial court for reinstatement of the indictment. Further, we determine that principles of double jeopardy do not bar retrial.

The petitioner, Ellis S. Baucom, Jr., pled guilty to aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, receiving sentences, respectively, of fifteen years and thirty years, to be served concurrently at forty-five percent. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel had been ineffective in representing him. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. We affirm that dismissal.

The Petitioner, Brian Christian Lautenschlager, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as being time-barred. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review, we conclude that the petition for post-conviction relief was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Defendant, Annette Turner Morrow, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Maury County Circuit Court. The Defendant pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at over $10,000 but less than $60,000 and identity theft. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective five-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender and ordered the Defendant to serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her request for probation or other alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant-Appellant, Frank G. Watkins (hereinafter “Watkins”), appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence. Watkins contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to base its decision on a “willful” action. Following our review, we find no abuse of discretion. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, Bobby Lee, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. The petitioner was convicted of attempted first degree murder and received a sixty-year Department of Correction sentence as a career offender. The State has filed a motion for the judgment of the trial court to be affirmed by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Finding merit in the motion, we grant the same and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this consolidated appeal, the petitioner, Gerald Wayne Carter, challenges the circuit court’s summary dismissal of his petitions for both post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis. The circuit court dismissed the petitions, finding that the petitioner had filed outside the statute of limitations period. After review, we affirm the judgments of the court.

The defendant, Timmy Lee Hill, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Marshall County of three counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; one count of escape, a Class E felony; and one count of evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The three counts of aggravated kidnapping were merged. The defendant was sentenced as follows: one nineteen-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping, with a concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentence for evading arrest; one consecutive ten-year sentence for aggravated assault on the same victim as the aggravated kidnapping, with a concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentence for assault on a second victim; and one consecutive six-year sentence for escape, for an effective sentence of thirty-five years. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence for the aggravated assault. We affirm the judgments of the trial court, except we remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment for the aggravated assault to reflect a ten-year sentence.

The petitioner, Jimmie Lee Hoyle, 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 and entered his guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Mark Alton Mayfield, appeals from his convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Cumberland County for carjacking, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping, class B felonies. He was sentenced to ten years for each offense to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of ten years. He contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to convict for each offense; (2) the trial court improperly included language referring to the nature of conduct and the circumstances surrounding the conduct in its jury instructions; and (3) the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant to more than the minimum sentence as prohibited by Blakely v. United States, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Marcus Johnson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Allan Joseph Robles, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery and resulting twelve-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to file a motion to suppress his confession to police. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.