APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner was convicted by a jury of five counts of armed robbery, four of which were affirmed and one of which was reversed and dismissed by this Court in an opinion filed on March 6, 1985. Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied on June 10, 1985. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 24, 1995, which the court below treated as one for post-conviction relief and dismissed without a hearing on the basis that it was time-barred. He contends that this summary dismissal was improper. After reviewing the record, we affirm the lower court’s judgment.

The appellant, Darren Campbell, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. This Court reduced his conviction to second degree murder and remanded to the trial court for sentencing.¹ The appellant was sentenced as a Range I offender to 23 years incarceration. His sole issue on appeal is whether his sentence was excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant was charged in the indictment with theft of property valued between ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). On September 21, 1995, she filed an application for pretrial diversion. The district attorney general denied the application on September 28, 1995. The defendant then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the  district attorney general’s decision to deny her application. After a hearing, the trial court found that the State had abused its discretion and ordered the defendant placed on pretrial diversion. In this appeal pursuant to T.R.A.P. 9, the State contends the trial court erred in finding that the State had abused its discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant was indicted on November 7, 1994, for the first-degree murder of Lisa C. Stewart. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder and fined him fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). After a hearing, the defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After a review of the entire record, we find that this issue is without merit, and therefore, his conviction is affirmed.

The petitioner, Andre Anthony, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; forgery over $1000, a Class D felony; and two counts of forgery over $500, a Class E felony. He received an effective total sentence of forty-six years. He seeks post-conviction relief and argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and we affirm that judgment

The appellant, Jackie H. Martin, appeals the order entered by the Criminal Court of Shelby County denying his petition for discharge from involuntary commitment.1 On appeal, the appellant presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the appellant is not eligible for mandatory outpatient treatment as an alternative to commitment; and (2) whether the trial judge should have recused himself from this case.

I concur with the majority opinion and also with Judge Welles’ concurring
opinion.

The defendant, Shamarcus Antwan Hunt, was convicted of the sale of cocaine under .5 grams, a Class C felony, and possession of cocaine over .5 grams with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class B felony. He was sentenced, respectively, to eight years and twelve years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court should have declared a mistrial following allegedly improper remarks by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect that the defendant’s sentences are to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently.

The original trial of this case took place in Montgomery County. Judge John H. Peay presided over the trial of the appellant and his co-defendant, Brett Patterson, which resulted in two convictions for felony murder, one conviction for first degree burglary, and one conviction for aggravated rape for each defendant. The jury sentenced the appellant to death. The appellant’s co-defendant received a life sentence. On direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant’s convictions were affirmed, but the death penalty was set aside and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing. State v. Cauthern, 778 S.W.2d 39 (Tenn. 1989). On remand, Judge Peay granted the appellant’s motion to transfer the case out of Montgomery
County. The new sentencing hearing was held in Gibson County.

I concur with Judge Peay’s opinion in this case. I write separately to point out that, in my opinion, a finding by the trial judge that the district attorney general did not consider all relevant factors in denying pretrial diversion does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that pretrial diversion will be granted. Even though the district attorney general may have abused his discretion by failing to consider all relevant factors, the denial may be justified after all relevant factors are considered. If such is the case, in a manner somewhat analogous to a “harmless error” analysis, the denial of pretrial diversion should be upheld.

The Appellant, Bruce Cole, appeals as of right his sentences for five convictions of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance. The Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it enhanced his sentences and ordered them to be served consecutively. Following a careful review of the record on appeal, we remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

The petitioner, Claude Sharkey, pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He claims that his indictments were deficient and that his sentences were improper. After review, we conclude his judgments are facially valid with no jurisdictional defect or illegal sentences. The summary dismissal is affirmed.

The defendant, Shundell L. Dickerson, was convicted of facilitation of first degree murder (Class A felony) and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to sixty years in prison. He appeals his conviction and sentence. He argues the trial court erred in: (1) precluding him from entering into evidence an anonymous letter mailed to the police in which other persons were named as responsible for the crime; (2) limiting the questioning of a witness regarding his expectations of favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony; and (3) allowing the prosecutor to make improper remarks during closing argument. Finally, the defendant argues enhancement factors were improperly applied to increase his sentence. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The defendant, Thomas M. Sullivan, was convicted of reckless homicide, a Class D felony. He requested judicial diversion or probation, but the court denied those motions and imposed a sentence of two years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion or alternative sentencing. After careful review, we conclude no error exists and affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The petitioner, Maurice Lashaun Nash, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel.  After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

The Appellant, Lamont Christopher Brown,1 appeals the order of the Madison County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In January 2006, in two separate cases, Brown entered guilty pleas to misdemeanor possession of cocaine, misdemeanor possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, Class C felony sale of cocaine, and two counts of Class B sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and received an effective sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. The sentences were suspended, and Brown was placed on supervised probation. In  September 2006, a probation violation warrant was filed, in both cases, alleging numerous violations of the terms of Brown’s probation. Following a hearing, Brown’s probation was revoked, resulting in the reinstatement of his original sentences, which were ordered to be served in confinement. On appeal, Brown argues that “the trial court erred in revoking [Brown’s] probation and ordering that [Brown] serve his sentence.”  Finding no abuse of discretion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Marion County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Edward Poe, of one count of manufacturing a controlled substance, one count of attempted possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, and one count of felony possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, he alleges that a directed verdict should have been granted based on the insufficiency of evidence as a whole, as well as based on insufficient evidence for the paraphernalia charge because there was no proof of intent to deliver the paraphernalia. He also alleges that the convictions for manufacturing a controlled substance and felony possession of drug paraphernalia were inconsistent and that the court should not have excluded testimony from a court clerk regarding the filing of the January 23, 2002 search warrant. Upon review, we affirm the judgments as modified.

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which reverses the convictions for rape of a child and dismisses those five counts of the indictment.

The Appellant, Alec Joseph Mesot, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of five counts of rape of a child and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. On appeal, Mesot challenges only his convictions for rape of a child, asserting: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because: (a) the State failed to sufficiently corroborate his confessions in order to independently establish the corpus delicti of the offenses and (b) the State failed to prove the element of penetration; and (2) that the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte provide a limiting instruction with regard to the introduction of pornographic images recovered from Mesot’s computer. Following review of the record, we conclude that the State has failed to produce independent evidence to corroborate Mesot’s confessions, which alone support the corpus delicti of the crimes of rape of a child. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient with regard to those convictions. As such, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the five convictions for rape of a child are dismissed. Mesot’s remaining issues are without merit.

The defendant, Ronald Frank Webb, was convicted by a Cumberland County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, for which the court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with 120 days to be served in jail at seventy-five percent release eligibility. The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred in giving lengthy and confusing instructions to the jury and in commenting that the instructions were confusing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

On August 10, 2006, Petitioner, Xavier C. Parks, pleaded guilty in Hardeman County to a single count of aggravated burglary and he was sentenced to six years of incarceration as a Range I Standard Offender. Petitioner did not appeal the sentence. On November 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition. He used a form post-conviction petition provided by the State of Tennessee and simply checked the boxes beside two common grounds alleged in post-conviction proceedings: (1) “conviction was based on unlawfully induced guilty plea or guilty plea involuntarily entered without understanding of the nature and consequences of the plea;” and (9) “denial of effective assistance of counsel.” The petition contained no facts which would support these alleged grounds for collateral relief, and the post-conviction judge dismissed the petition for that reason.  We are constrained to agree with the post-conviction court and, therefore, affirm the dismissal.

The Defendant, Alex L. Vance, pled guilty to reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced him to three years for the felony conviction and ordered that he serve four months in the county jail, with the remainder to be served on probation. He was also sentenced to a concurrent term of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor offense. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion and by ordering a sentence of split confinement rather than full probation. Following our review, we affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court.

A Grundy County jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Bray, of two counts of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to two life sentences. On appeal, the Defendant alleges that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on flight. After a thorough review of the applicable record and law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, William Earl Wilson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that his guilty plea was not entered into knowingly and voluntarily and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. On December 8, 2005, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to twenty years as a career offender. Specifically, the petitioner argues that his level of education and history of mental illness should invalidate his guilty plea and that counsel should have had him evaluated for competency prior to entering the guilty plea. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Patrick Smotherman, pled guilty to selling more than .5 grams of cocaine. He petitioned the court for post-conviction relief, claiming that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently entered. The post-conviction court denied relief, and it is from this judgment that the Petitioner now appeals. After reviewing the evidence and applicable law, we conclude that the post-conviction court did not err, and we affirm the judgment.