APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Ralph Lester Nelson, pled guilty to one count of violating a motor vehicle habitual offender order, a Class E felony; one count of driving without a seatbelt, a Class C misdemeanor; and one count of driving without proof of financial responsibility, a Class E misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to an effective sentence of three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred when it did not grant him alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the well-reasoned opinion of the majority as to all issues except the issue of the Defendant’s sentence. The majority opinion modifies the Defendant’s sentence from one year of confinement followed by sixteen years of probation to one year of confinement followed by eight years of probation.

The defendant, Tamela T. Scott, was convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication, a class B felony, and three counts of vehicular assault, a class D felony. She received an effective sentence of eight years. The sentence was ordered to be served by one year in confinement and sixteen years on probation. Among the conditions of the defendant’s probation were 200 hours of  community service per year, and the defendant was also prohibited from driving for eight years.  The defendant appeals the judgments, arguing that (1) the convicting evidence is insufficient; (2) the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony of “retrograde extrapolation” related to the defendant’s blood alcohol level; (3) the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding blood alcohol; and (4) the trial court erred in determining the conditions of her community service, the length of her probation, and that her driving privileges will be revoked for eight years. We affirm the judgments for the three counts of vehicular assault. We affirm the conviction of vehicular homicide by intoxication, but we modify the manner of service of the eight-year sentence to one year in confinement followed by eight years of probation.

The petitioner, Author Ray Turner, appeals the circuit court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the court’s order.

The defendant, Tryphena Nicole Jones, pled guilty to possession of cocaine and failure to appear, both Class A misdemeanors, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of eleven months, twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent release eligibility. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Gordon McGee, Jr., was indicted by the Warren County grand jury for simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and applied for pretrial diversion. The state denied the application and the defendant sought certiorari review by the trial court. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted certiorari and ordered the state to enter into a memorandum of understanding granting pretrial diversion to the defendant. The state appeals as of right the order of the trial court. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and his motion to reopen post-conviction petition. The trial court properly concluded that the Appellant cannot prevail on the claims asserted in the two pleadings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I concur in the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I question, though, whether we can firmly say that the victim’s saying, “No, No,” and “Mommy hit me” was sufficiently relevant and not too prejudicial in the context of the trial.

The defendant, Erica Lynn Wyma, was convicted of attempted aggravated child abuse, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years in the Department of Correction. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, the trial court erred in admitting a statement of the victim as an excited utterance, and her sentence is excessive.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Raymond McNeil, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of Class D felony evading arrest, alleging that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence at trial. The defendant challenges neither his conviction of driving on a revoked license nor his 12-year effective sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Brian Davidson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell and/or deliver, one count of possession of anhydrous ammonia, one count of possession of marijuana, two counts of possession of Hydrocodone, and two counts of possession of Alprazolam. After merging the manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine convictions, the possession of Hydrocodone convictions, and the possession of Alprazolam convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant to five years for manufacturing methamphetamine, eighteen months for possession of anhydrous ammonia, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the convictions for possession of Hydrocodone, Alprazolam, and marijuana, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the defendant’s sentences in a federal case. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon a violation of the speedy trial provision of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, in denying his motion to suppress a detective’s in-court identification of him, in denying his discovery request for the impeaching convictions of his codefendant, and in ordering that he serve his sentences consecutively to his federal sentences. Having reviewed the record and found no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Stewart County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Jason Clinard, of first degree premeditated murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1); -204 (2006). In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by (1) not suppressing photographs of the victim, (2) allowing the State an independent psychological examination of the defendant, (3) failing to disqualify the District Attorney General’s Office, and (4) following the statutory sentencing scheme that resulted in the defendant’s life sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.  The petitioner, Barry L. Price, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the entire record, including petitioner’s Traverse To Appellee’s Answers filed on July 29, 2008, we are persuaded that the post-conviction court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s post-conviction petition. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Therefore, we grant the state’s motion, and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Kelvin Jermaine Dowell, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by presenting two inconsistent defense theories at his trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, Robert Bonds, was convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range III offender to fifteen years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Clarence Dodson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated burglary, Class C felony, and theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent sentences of fifteen years and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the respective convictions. On appeal, he raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the aggravated burglary conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing prior convictions for aggravated burglary and misdemeanor theft of services to be used  or impeachment purposes. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments of convictions.

Following a bench trial in the Houston County Circuit Court, the defendant, Chad Lewis Monette, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, as a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. He was subsequently sentenced to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because aggravated sexual battery is not a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. He further challenges the admission and consideration of certain testimony and exhibits introduced as evidence at trial. Following review of the record, we conclude that aggravated sexual battery is a lesser-included offense of rape of a child; thus, no error occurred in the conviction. With regard to the evidentiary issues, we conclude that the defendant has waived consideration of the issues by his failure to contemporaneously object at trial, his failure to raise the issues in his motion for new trial, or his failure to cite to legal authority on appeal. Because the alleged evidentiary issues do not rise to the level of plain error, we decline review. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The defendant, McKinley Wright, appeals as of right his Shelby County jury conviction for unlawful possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 15 grams of heroin, a Class B felony. ¹The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven years as a Range I, standard offender to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court improperly admitted evidence without establishing the chain of custody, that the trial court improperly admitted testimony regarding the timing of testing controlled substances recovered by Shelby County authorities, that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding facilitation, that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence, and that all of the cumulative errors deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Ricky Pipkin, Jr., pled guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and theft over $500. He also pled guilty in a separately charged case to initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver more than .5 grams. As a condition of his guilty pleas, the defendant properly reserved several certified questions of law, challenging the legality and validity of the search warrant. Specifically, the defendant argued that the affidavit for the search warrant did not satisfy both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test and therefore failed for lack of probable cause. He further argued that  information contained in the warrant was stale and insufficient. Finally, the defendant argued that if the search warrant was invalid in the first case, then any evidence and statements used against him in the second case must also be suppressed as fruits of an illegal search. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and dismiss the defendant’s convictions.

In October 2005, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Kevin Swift, on two counts
of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. Following a jury trial in Shelby County Criminal Court,
the defendant was convicted on both counts of the indictment; however, upon stipulation of the
parties one of the defendant’s convictions was reduced to the lesser included offense of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven years as a Range I, standard offender on the aggravated robbery conviction and nine years as a Range II, multiple offender on the aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered these sentences to be served consecutively. The defendant appeals, asserting that: (1) the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his aggravated robbery conviction; (2) the sentences imposed for both
sentences were excessive in that they were enhanced based on factors not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Leman Earl Russell, Jr., entered a plea of guilty, in January 2007, to three counts of selling a Schedule II controlled substance under .5 grams (Class C felony) and one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance over .5 grams with intent to sell or deliver (Class B felony), in exchange for a sentence of split confinement. For each Class C felony conviction, he was sentenced to six months in the county jail and four years on community corrections, with each sentence to be served concurrently. For the Class B felony, he was sentenced to six months in the county jail to be followed by nine years and five months on community corrections, also concurrent with the other sentences, for a total effective sentence of nine years and eleven months (six months in confinement followed by nine years and five months on community corrections). Here, the defendant appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence. After review, we conclude that the trial court properly revoked the defendant’s community corrections sentence.

The petitioner, Michael Derrick Huskins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief wherein he challenged his 2006 Polk County Criminal Court conviction of felony murder. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty plea was involuntary and was the result of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Jack E. Thompson, in this consolidated appeal, appeals from one judgment revoking his probation and another judgment sentencing him to three years to be served consecutively to the sentence for which his probation was revoked. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence and that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence to three years on his plea of guilty to burglary of a vehicle, a Class E felony. After review, we affirm both judgments from the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Daniel Ronald Vengrin, pled guilty to vandalism in an amount greater than $500, a Class E felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the appellant to one year and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction and ordered that the appellant have no contact with the victim and pay restitution. Subsequently, the appellant was found guilty of twenty-one counts of criminal contempt for failing to comply with the terms of the no-contact order that was a condition of his plea agreement. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of 210 days for his contempt convictions. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction “to modify or otherwise enforce the terms and conditions of the [j]udgment in [the appellant’s] case.” Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.