APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Shelby County jury found the Appellant, Robert Austin, guilty of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree premeditated murder. Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury sentenced Austin to two terms of life imprisonment without parole. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Austin to forty years, as a Range II offender, for the attempted first degree murder and ordered that all of his sentences run consecutively. On appeal, Austin presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in disallowing expert testimony regarding Austin’s capacity to form the requisite intent for intentional or knowing offenses; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. With regard to issue (1), we conclude that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony; however, the error was harmless. The remaining issues are without merit. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and the imposition of consecutive sentences are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Roy R. Williams, appeals the post-conviction court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues that his conviction for murder during the perpetration of a felony should be set aside because his trial attorneys failed to properly investigate a possible insanity defense and because they coerced him to plead guilty by making him fearful of receiving the death penalty. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s order of dismissal.

Petitioner, Randall Carver, filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis and/or habeas corpus relief. The trial court treated the petition as one for post-conviction and summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, this Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition. See Randall Carver v. State, No. M2002-02891-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL 21145572 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 16, 2003). Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging numerous claims for relief. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing, determining that because Petitioner failed to produce material to the court for consideration and that because Petitioner was being held by the State of Kentucky on Kentucky charges all of Petitioner’s issues were moot. Petitioner appealed. On appeal, this Court, without reaching the merits of Petitioner’s argument, remanded the case for determination of “why the counsel who represented the petitioner in the lower court is not representing the petitioner on appeal.” See Randall Carver v. Tony Parker, Warden, No. W2005-00522-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 140408, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 18, 2006). On remand, the trial court learned that Petitioner had been granted parole on his underlying sentences in the State of Tennessee, waived extradition and was transferred to the custody of the State of Kentucky. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. He argues that he is entitled to request habeas corpus relief while being incarcerated in Kentucky and that this Court should transfer the petition to the court in which he was originally convicted. Because an out-of-state resident may seek habeas corpus relief in Tennessee from a Tennessee conviction, see State v. Church, 987 S.W.2d 855, 857-58 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), and the supreme court recently determined in Joseph
Faulkner a/k/a Jerry Faulkner v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2007 WL 1226831, at *6 (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2007), that a “prisoner serving concurrent state and federal sentences in a federal correctional institution may challenge his state convictions through the use of the state writ of habeas corpus,” we determine that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to make a determination on the merits of Petitioner’s claim by virtue of Petitioner’s parole from his Tennessee convictions and incarceration in Kentucky. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Petitioner, Jimmie Lee Hoyle, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that it was error for the post-conviction court to deny relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, allowing him to amend his petition, or appointing counsel. Following our review, we conclude that the Petitioner stated a colorable claim in his petition. Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Gamal Edham, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of selling beer to a minor, arguing that because of his limited ability to understand English, his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Blount County jury convicted the defendant, Margie Frances Hamby, of attempted theft of property valued under $500, and the trial court sentenced her to six months, with thirty days in jail and the balance to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in not granting her full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, William Joshua Harwood, appeals as of right from his Hamilton County Criminal Court convictions for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and two counts of theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because they are based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The state concedes in its brief that the convictions should be reversed and dismissed for this reason. Following our review, we agree. Accordingly, the convictions are reversed and dismissed.

Following a jury trial, the petitioner, Robert S. Barnes, was convicted of reckless endangerment, attempted rape, robbery, aggravated burglary, and assault. For his convictions, the petitioner was sentenced as a career offender to an effective sentence of forty-five years for the felony convictions, plus consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the two misdemeanor convictions. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgments of the trial court. State v. Robert Sanford Barnes, No. W2003-02967-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 331376 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 11, 2005). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief which the postconviction court subsequently denied after an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner now appeals. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. Following a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Neil Lincoln Miller, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that his sentence is illegal. Because the record and law establish that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Sherman Clark, appeals the trial court's denial 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. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Allen Oliver, 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 assert a ground that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal.

The defendant, Nathaniel Starr, appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, for which he received a sentence of twenty-five years as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, he alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred in finding him to be a persistent offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jack N. Taylor, was convicted of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced to three years in the community corrections program. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Terrance Burke, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Burke argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Marty Michelle Clark, was convicted of attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II offender to six years in confinement. The defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to sustain his nconviction. Upon review of the full record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of  the trial court.

I am, respectfully, unable to join in the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s judgment of conviction due to the insufficiency of the evidence, although I concur in the majority opinion regarding all other issues. The majority concludes that there is insufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could conclude that the Defendant, knowingly, by other than accidental means, inflicted serious injury on this victim. Specifically, the majority concludes that there is a failure of evidence with regard to the Defendant’s mens rea.

The defendant, Scott Christopher Magness, appeals as of right from the sentence of confinement imposed by the Hardin County Circuit Court for his conviction of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. As a Range I, standard offender, the defendant received a sentence of six  years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated assault, one count of theft, Class D felony theft, and misdemeanor vandalism, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for aggravated assault and theft; (2) the trial court improperly allowed testimony that the Defendant had kidnapped the victim the night before this incident; and (3) the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. Finding that there exists no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, David Harold Hanson, was convicted of aggravated child abuse a Class A felony, and received a sentence of eighteen years imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the definition of “accidental means” as submitted by the defendant; (3) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the “knowing” element of aggravated child abuse; and (4) whether the trial court erred by giving sequential jury instructions. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant possessed the requisite mental state for aggravated child abuse; and therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the case.

The defendant, Jarvis Harris, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and attempted first degree murder and sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment and eighteen years. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude references to gang affiliation and the State made improper comments about gang membership during opening and closing statements; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements; and (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of conviction but remand for appropriate resentencing for the attempted first degree murder conviction.

The majority in this case concludes that defendant is not entitled to relief based on the trial court’s rulings regarding the defendant’s proposed expert, Dr. Stephen Adams. As the majority states, the trial court ruled that Dr. Adams was qualified to give expert testimony regarding the defendant’s brain injuries; however, in ruling that Dr. Adams was not qualified as a psychiatric expert, the trial court stated that “[t]he court does not prefer to hear testimony regarding capacity on a non-specific intent crime.” In my view, this ruling prevented the Dr. Adams from presenting any testimony that the defendant lacked the capacity to form the requisite mental state for the offense with which he was charged. As a result, the defendant was prevented from presenting the key element of his defense, and the ruling clearly prejudiced the defendant. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

The defendant, Bradley Ferrell, was convicted by a Van Buren County jury of escape, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the trial court to eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended after service of sixty days in the county jail. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial, in not permitting his expert witness to testify about his incapacity to form the requisite intent for the crime, in refusing his request for a special jury instruction on diminished capacity, and in overruling his motion for a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Lachanta Monique Tyler, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and theft of property involving merchandise valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102; 39-14-103; 39-14-105; 39-14-146. She was sentenced to three years for the aggravated assault conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the theft conviction, with the sentences imposed concurrently and to be served on probation. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction of aggravated assault, (2) that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on aggravated assault, (3) that the trial court erred in failing to sever these offenses from two other offenses of which she was acquitted, (4) that the court erred by admitting prior bad act evidence of a prior shoplifting incident. Upon review, we affirm the defendant’s theft conviction, modify the aggravated assault conviction to assault, and remand the case for imposition of judgment on the assault conviction including a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation and concurrently with the theft sentence.

The petitioner, Constancia Reyes, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to possession of three hundred grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell and agreed to a fifteen-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. Subsequently, she filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel because her trial attorney failed to file a motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of her traffic stop and that she was coerced into pleading guilty. The post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The defendant, William Phillip Graham, was convicted of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, at a jury trial in the Madison County Circuit Court. He is presently serving a twenty-year sentence as a Violent Offender in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, he argues 1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; 2) that the trial court erred in denying his petition to compel attendance of an out-of-state witness; 3) that the trial court made erroneous rulings during the trial relative to the scope of redirect examination of a state’s witness; 4) that the court erred in denying his request to make an offer of proof after an adverse evidentiary ruling; 5) that the court erred in allowing the state to recall the victim during its case-in-chief; and 6) that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s requests for curative instructions relative to two aspects of the prosecutor’s closing argument. We conclude that no reversible error occurred, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn.