APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Shelby County Jury convicted the Petitioner, Bobby Joe Lester, of attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated assault, and coercion of a witness. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction with the conviction for attempted first degree murder and sentenced the Petitioner to an effective eighty-five year sentence. The conviction and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. State v. Bobby Joe Lester, No. W2004-00842-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1798763 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 28, 2005). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, amended by appointed counsel, alleging he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to request the jury be instructed on facilitation; (2) failing to adequately argue in the motion for new trial that his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted first degree murder violate due process, citing State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991); and (3) failing to object to testimony from the victim about a prior rape. The Petitioner also contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the Anthony issue on appeal. After reviewing the issues and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Petitioner, George Langford, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and/or Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in which he contended that the trial court’s instructions to the jury violated his constitutional right to due process. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Timothy Swofford, presents for review a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, to be suspended after serving forty-eight hours in confinement. As a condition of his guilty plea, Defendant properly reserved a certified question of law as to whether he was subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, James Scott of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), fourth offense. On appeal, he alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for selective prosecution and his attempt to impeach a witness without viewing the pertinent parts of a video he claimed supported both claims, that the trial court erred in imposing more than the presumptive minimum sentence, and that the trial judge erred in failing to recuse himself for the ruling on the motion for new trial. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s order overruling the motion for new trial and remand.

This is a State appeal from an order dismissing the indictment against the Defendant, Cedric Ruron Saine. The Defendant was indicted for possession with the intent to sell more than 300 grams of cocaine. The issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress evidence seized from the Defendant’s residence and vehicle or, more specifically, whether the search warrant affidavit contained sufficient facts to establish probable cause that drugs were located inside the Defendant’s home and, if not, whether the warrantless search of the Defendant’s car was supported by exigent circumstances. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the order of the trial court granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of his residence, but we reverse the decision to suppress the drugs found during the search of the Defendant’s car. We vacate the order dismissing the indictment, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A Putnam County jury convicted Appellant, William Floyd Cartwright, of first degree premeditated murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the State did not prove that he acted with premeditation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court because the evidence sufficiently supports the conviction.

The defendant, Steven Ray Tallent, pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic assault and was sentenced in the Blount County Circuit Court to a sentence of 11 months and 29 days, which was suspended to supervised probation. On May 30, 2007, the court revoked the probation and ordered the defendant to serve 11 months and 29 days in confinement. From that order, the defendant appeals and claims a lack of evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment below.

The Defendant, Terrell Antron Greer, was convicted upon a jury verdict of one count of the sale or delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, and he was sentenced to five years or that conviction. He was likewise convicted of two counts of the sale or delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine, Class B felonies, and he was sentenced to eleven years for each of those convictions. All of his sentences were ordered to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. In this appeal, he asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences are excessive. Following our review of the appellate record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Edward Stanley, was convicted by a Cumberland County criminal court jury of rape, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in sentencing him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Kenneth Paul Dykas, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus twenty-four years. This Court affirmed those judgments on direct appeal. ¹ He filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming he failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel because counsel allegedly failed to properly strike a juror, failed to prepare him for trial, and failed to prepare a witness for examination. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and we affirmed that decision. ² The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, again claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly strike a juror and for failing to object to a jury instruction. The habeas court dismissed the petition, and, after a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The Petitioner, Christopher James Dodson, pled guilty to facilitation of robbery, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner, a Range I offender, to four years to be served at thirty percent. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that the parties and the trial court agreed at sentencing that the Petitioner should receive thirteen months of jail credit, which he was not given by the Tennessee Department of Correction. Because he was not given this jail credit, the Petitioner alleged he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his guilty plea was not voluntarily entered, and he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition after a hearing. The Petitioner appeals that dismissal, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Claudell Watkins Carpenter, was convicted of second degree murder, first degree murder in the perpetration of a burglary, especially aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Additionally, the defendant pled guilty to evading arrest. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, he filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court subsequently granted as to certain of the convictions, reducing the second degree murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter and dismissing the first degree murder and aggravated assault convictions. The defendant then was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, twelve years for the especially aggravated burglary conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the evading arrest conviction, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Thereafter, the State appealed the trial court’s ruling on the motion for judgment ofacquittal. Rule 29, pursuant to which the defendant filed the motion for judgment of acquittal, requires that, before a judgment is entered following the granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court first should rule on the motion for new trial. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for disposition of the motion for new trial so that a single appeal will result from the defendant’s trial. Since judgments were entered prematurely following the court’s granting the motion, they are set aside, and the jury verdicts for second degree murder (Count 1), first degree murder in the perpetration of a burglary (Count 2), and aggravated assault (Count 4) are reinstated. Because the State’s appeal is premature, it is dismissed.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendants, Martha Ann Freeman and Rafael DeJesus Rocha-Perez, of the first-degree murder of Martha Freeman’s husband. On appeal, Freeman alleges that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting a nude photograph of Rocha-Perez; (2) refusing to allow Freeman to play a recording of a 911 call; and (3) refusing to grant her motion to sever. Rocha-Perez alleges the trial court erred by allowing a police officer to testify concerning a statement Freeman made in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Both Defendants allege there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Christopher Cooper, pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of property worth $10,000 or more but less than $60,000 and was sentenced in the Blount County Circuit Court to a sentence of four years, with 30 days to be served incarcerated on consecutive weekends and the balance to be served through supervised probation. On April 16, 2007, the court revoked the probation and ordered the defendant to serve six months in confinement and extended his subsequent probation period by one year. From that order, the defendant appeals and claims a lack of evidence to support revocation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment below.

At the conclusion of a bench trial, the defendant, Gary Lynn Sykes, was convicted of aggravated assault. The trial court required restitution of $4,421.00 and imposed a Range I, three-year sentence in the Dyer County jail; all but sixty days were suspended. In his appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of a post-conviction relief petition. The appellant, Michael South, was convicted of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery and sentenced to serve 60 years and 30 years, respectively.  The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.  In his petition seeking post-conviction relief, the sole issue was whether South had been denied effective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge filed an excellent, detailed opinion. The trial judge found that counsel’s performance was not deficient and denied relief. We have reviewed the briefs, transcript of the hearing, opinion and order denying relief and the entire appellate record. The evidence in the record does not preponderate against the findings and conclusions of the trial court.  The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal appeals.

The Appellant, Michael Anthony Pike, appeals as of right his sentences for simple possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He argues on appeal that the trial judge erred by not placing him in community corrections or, in the alternative, by not giving him the minimum statutory sentences. After a careful review of the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant, Devito Polk, pled guilty to second degree murder¹ and was sentenced to 35 years as a Multiple Range II offender. His sentence was to be served concurrently with seven pending aggravated robbery charges. He, thereafter, filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an unknowing and involuntary plea. He appeals the denial of the petition. He raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether he knowingly and intelligently entered his plea of guilty; and (2) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

The petitioner, Glen Cook, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was sentenced improperly. Specifically, he argues that counsel failed to interview witnesses, never discussed trial strategy with the petitioner, and failed to file proper motions. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on October 3, 1996, and the petitioner filed his brief on October 23, 1996. The petitioner was originally indicted for aggravated rape in November 1988, and was convicted of the same in August 1989. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on October 3, 1996, and the petitioner filed his brief on October 22, 1996. The petitioner was originally indicted for aggravated rape in October 1988, and the petitioner pled guilty to the same in January 1989. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.

The petitioner, Ronald Turks, a/k/a Asad E. Mujihadeen, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court which denied him post-conviction, habeas corpus and coram nobis relief from his 1979 first degree murder conviction and resulting life sentence. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's case because the postconviction and coram nobis actions were barred by statutes of limitations and the habeas corpus action failed to state a ground for relief. The following issues are presented for review:

(1) Can evidence tending to show actual innocence of the crime for which the petitioner has been convicted be the basis for post-conviction relief under Tennessee law?

(2) Can evidence tending to show actual innocence of the crime for which the petitioner has been convicted be the basis for habeas corpus relief?

(3) Does the one-year statute of limitations for bringing evidence of actual innocence under Tennessee's coram nobis statute violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.

Bryan Matthew Willis appeals his convictions in the Circuit Court of Henry County. He was convicted by a jury of three (3) counts of aggravated burglary and three (3) counts of theft of property. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient for the convictions based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Willie Claybrook, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In this appeal of right, two issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (2) whether the trial court's order denying relief met the minimum statutory requirements. 
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 trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on October 3, 1996, and the petitioner filed his brief on October 24, 1996. The petitioner was originally indicted for aggravated rape in January 1981, and was convicted of the same in May 1981. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.