APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Brian Foster Vise, was convicted of facilitation of aggravated burglary and filing a false police report, Class D felonies, and facilitation of theft of property valued under $500, a Class B misdemeanor. The Defendant received a sentence of thirty days for the misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years for each felony conviction, ordering the seven-year sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, he presents a single issue for our consideration: whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Khalfani Marion, was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the four aggravated robbery counts into two convictions and sentenced the defendant to twenty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and nine years for each aggravated robbery conviction, ordering all sentences to be served consecutively on the basis that the defendant was a dangerous offender.  On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and alleges numerous sentencing errors by the trial court. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions and that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 2004 the petitioner, Bradford Thurman, was convicted of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced to five years in the Department of Correction. No direct appeal was taken from this conviction. In 2005 he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.In 2004 the petitioner, Bradford Thurman, was convicted of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced to five years in the Department of Correction. No direct appeal was taken from this conviction. In 2005 he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Charles Lincoln Faulkner, was convicted of selling more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1000' of school property and delivery of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1000' of school property. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to twenty years in prison and a fine. On appeal, the Defendant alleges the trial court erred by: (1) failing to dismiss the charges because of a material variance between the presentment and evidence at trial; (2) failing to exclude evidence of prior bad acts; (3) failing to exclude expert testimony; (4) instructing the jury in error; (5) failing to bifurcate the trial; and (6) sentencing the Defendant in violation of the Sixth Amendment. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, James C. Murray, was convicted in 1994 by a Davidson County jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life in prison on the murder conviction and twenty-two years on the conspiracy conviction. The court ordered the sentences to be run consecutively for an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. In this habeas corpus petition, the Petitioner argues that the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is thus void. After a thorough review of the issue and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The Defendant, Michael Brad Ramsey, pled guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. He was sentenced to serve forty-five days and granted work release under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-2-128(c). Following a motion by the Defendant, the Maury County Circuit Court granted the Defendant permission to leave confinement to attend an educational institution. The State now appeals from the release order. After review, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that it was authorized to grant release for educational purposes to a DUI second offender. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Dominic Lamar Blair, pled guilty to attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive terms of twelve years and five years, for an effective sentence of seventeen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by not applying certain mitigating factors and by ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Odis Kayaunce Hantz, appeals his Chester County Circuit Court conviction of aggravated robbery, alleging insufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Douglas Duke, pled guilty to statutory rape. In accordance with the plea agreement, the Defendant accepted a sentence of eighteen months, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of sentence. After the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant an alternative sentence and ordered him to serve his sentence in the workhouse. The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. After reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Christopher Shane Poole, pled guilty in the Dickson County Circuit Court to two counts of misdemeanor theft. Under the plea agreement, he received consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days, and his sentence was probated. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $1400.00 to the bank where he made the fraudulent withdrawals of funds. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the bank is not a “victim” for the purposes of the restitution statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304. After a review of the record, we uphold the order of restitution to the bank. We remand for entry of corrected judgments.

I fully concur in the excellent majority opinion. I would simply add that Tennessee commercial law supports the majority’s conclusion that the payor bank held a valid claim against the defendant. Generally, “an unauthorized signature is ineffective except as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of a person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value.” T.C.A § 47-3-403(a) (2001).

The State of Tennessee has filed a petition requesting this Court to rehear in the opinion filed on April 4, 2008. In its petition, the State requests that we reconsider our holding that the affidavit did not contain sufficient facts to establish probable cause to believe that drugs would be found inside the Defendant’s residence. The State argues that this Court’s opinion is in conflict with a prior decision of our supreme court and overlooks or misapprehends material facts established by the evidence.

The petitioner, Tarkis Jones, sought post-conviction relief after pleading guilty to charges of second degree murder, unlawful possession of a weapon, and assault. The Shelby County Criminal Court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner argues that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of second degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence used to convict him was insufficient to sustain a conviction for any offense greater than voluntary manslaughter. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

The Petitioner, George Campbell, Jr., appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for coram nobis 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. We conclude that the State's motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant, Jamiel D. Williams, appeals his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of first degree murder, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to prove premeditation. We hold that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The judgment is modified because it incorrectly classifies the sentence as a Class A felony.

The Appellant, Robert Lee Adams, Jr., was convicted by a Tipton County jury of Class B felony possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and misdemeanor possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Adams to fourteen years, as a Range II multiple offender, for Class B felony possession of cocaine and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On appeal, Adams raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying Adams’ motion to suppress evidence upon grounds that the pat-down search was not supported by a reasonable fear for officer safety; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for felony possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver; and (3) whether the court erred in allowing the State to question the TBI forensic agent regarding the average weight of cocaine tested in a typical cocaine prosecution case. Following review, the judgments of conviction is affirmed.

Petitioner, Jabari Issa Mandella, also known as John H. Wooden, sought habeas corpus relief from his sentences for second-degree burglary, aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and aggravated sexual battery. The petition alleged that the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court were in direct contravention of statute and that the trial court failed to state specific reasons for the imposition of consecutive sentencing, rendering the judgments against him void. The habeas corpus court determined that nothing in the petition would support a finding that Petitioner’s convictions were void or that his sentence had expired. On appeal, Petitioner challenges the judgment of the habeas corpus court. After a review of the denial of habeas corpus relief, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Appellant, Gregory Derrick Maness, appeals the sentencing decision of the Chester County Circuit Court ordering that his sentences be served in confinement. Following Maness’ guilty pleas to the filing of a false report, a Class D felony, and to the misdemeanor crimes of domestic assault and theft, Maness received an effective four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Maness raises the sole issue of whether the trial court erred “by sentencing [him] to the Tennessee Department of Corrections [sic], rather than an available alternative to incarceration?”  After review, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Robert Kimbrel, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for coram nobis 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. We conclude that the State's motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Defendant, Richard Lynn Dixon, appeals the revocation of his probation by the trial court. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking defendant's probation. After a thorough review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Clarence Carnell Gaston, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural prerequisites for seeking habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The petitioner, Jeffrey A. Simmons, was denied the writ of habeas corpus by the Hardeman County Circuit Court based upon his claims that (1) the indictments were void because they listed “Jane Doe” as the victim, (2) the indictments were void because they failed to allege a mens rea, and (3) the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him because it did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-209(a) by not sentencing him within forty-five days of conviction.  Upon review, we hold that the trial court properly dismissed the petition and affirm its order dismissing the petition.

The defendant, Bobby Dior McMillian, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to eleven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court sentenced him improperly. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The defendant, Alvin Green, was convicted of three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of forty-six years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State did not adequately rebut his defense of duress. Further, he argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce his statements soliciting the murder of the State’s witnesses; by allowing a lay witness to testify regarding the operation of the weapon used during the offenses; and in applying an enhancement factor and imposing consecutive sentences.  After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 4 to reflect that the defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, rather than attempted robbery.