APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Devonna Barbee, was found guilty of felony reckless endangerment (Class E felony). She was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to a one-year community corrections sentence with sixty days to be served in jail. She appeals, contending the trial court erred by failing to grant her judicial diversion. After careful review, we conclude the trial court properly denied judicial diversion, and we affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The Petitioner, Barry Sotherland, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner claims that his concurrent life sentences for aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping are illegal because he was convicted of these charges while on parole for another felony and the sentencing court failed to explicitly order that this new sentence be served consecutively to the sentence for the paroled offense. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the Wayne County Circuit Court summarily dismissing the petition.

After a bench trial, the Shelby County Criminal Court convicted the appellant of burglary of a building, a Class D felony, and sentenced him as a career offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jonathan P. Taylor, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to eight years incarceration. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Michael Stephen Cox, the defendant, appeals from a denial of his application for alternative sentencing. The defendant entered a best interest guilty plea, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970), to reckless aggravated assault (Class D felony) for a two-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial judge. After a hearing, alternative sentencing was denied and the defendant was ordered to serve two years of confinement as a Range I, standard offender. After review, we conclude that the denial of alternative sentencing was proper and affirm the sentence.

The defendant, Richard Odom, filed a motion to access closed files in the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, and the state opposed said motion. After two hearings on the matter, the trial court entered an order granting the defendant’s ex parte motion for the trial court to view the state’s file in camera for specific limited exculpatory material. We granted the state’s Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a) application for extraordinary appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s ex parte motion, requiring the state to relinquish its file for in camera inspection by the trial court. Upon our review of the record and due consideration of the issue, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s order.

The appellant, James Michael Hanners, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of misdemeanor assault, a lesser-included offense of abuse of a child under six years of age, in September 2002. In January 2003, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days. In
August 2005, the appellant moved for expungement of any records relating to the charge of child abuse, which the trial court denied relying on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101, as amended May 22, 2003. On appeal, the appellant argues that the denial of his motion for expungement violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Tennessee Constitution because he was entitled to expungement at the time of his conviction and sentencing. After our review of the parties’ briefs and the record as a whole, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of an expungement order.

The appellant, Patty Grissom, was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-425, and she was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served in confinement. She appealed, arguing that she was improperly sentenced and that trial counsel was ineffective. We conclude that the record on appeal is insufficient for our review, and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Scotty Wayne Henry, pled guilty to one count of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine and one count of felony reckless endangerment. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the search and seizure of evidence that led to his indictment and guilty plea were unconstitutional. We conclude that the search and seizure were constitutional, and the judgments of the trial court are therefore affirmed.

The Defendant, Pauline Lacey, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court. The Defendant was indicted for four counts of aggravated assault, and she subsequently pled guilty as charged. Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the Defendant received an effective four-year and six-month sentence, and the trial court was to determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve sixty days in jail, followed by probation for the remainder of her sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her request for full probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Antonio Hoyle, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused him to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief.

Defendant, Dennis Jarrett, was indicted on the following charges: count one, driving after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender; count two, driving under the influence of an intoxicant and/or drug; count three, driving under the influence, seventh offense; count four, felony reckless endangerment; count five, felony evading arrest; count six, possession of drug paraphernalia; count seven, violation of implied consent law; and count eight, failure to appear. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on counts one, four, five, six, seven, and eight. In a separate proceeding, Defendant entered pleas of guilty on counts two and three. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of six years for his convictions, the length and manner of service of which Defendant does not challenge on appeal. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of felony reckless endangerment. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Carroll County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), third offense, see T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2006), possession of a handgun while under the influence of an intoxicant, see id. § 39-17-1321(a) (2006), and possession of marijuana, see id. § 39-17-418(a), all Class A misdemeanors. The jury acquitted the defendant of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, rolling papers, see id. § 39-17-425(a)(1) (2006), and unlawful possession of a prohibited weapon, a throwing star, see id. § 39-17-1302(a)(8) (2006). The court sentenced the defendant for the DUI conviction to 11 months and 29 days suspended after serving 120 days. For the possession of a handgun charge he received 11 months and 29 days suspended after serving 30 days. Likewise, he received 11 months and 29 days suspended after 30 days for the possession of marijuana conviction. All sentences were to run concurrently. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and complains, only in regards to his DUI conviction, that (1) the trial “was fundamentally unfair due to the State’s failure to preserve the video tape of the field sobriety tests . . ., which . . . would have been exculpatory in nature,” and (2) “the verdict . . . was unreliable based upon [the deputy’s] erroneous testimony . . . concerning the Breathalyzer Machine and the test he gave and the manner in which he gave it.” After review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Wadie Michael Holifield, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a violent offender to serve eighteen years in the Department of Correction.  He appeals two issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial because the jury allegedly was tainted by overhearing courtroom conversations between the victim and her family. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the date of the offense as January 16, 2005, rather than February 4, 2005.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Linda Batts, was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. She was sentenced to serve eight years in the Department of Correction for the intent to deliver conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail for the paraphernalia conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of eight years. Defendant now appeals the judgments of the trial court arguing (1) the trial judge failed to exercise his duty to act as thirteenth juror and overturn the jury’s verdict, (2) the jury selection process was tainted in violation of her constitutional rights; and (3) the trial court improperly denied her motion to suppress evidence. After a thorough review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, Ronald Robinson, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Maron Donta Brown, pled guilty in the Bradley County Criminal Court to one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and one count of speeding.1 The appellant received a total sentence of fifteen years as a Range II multiple offender. As part of the plea agreement, the appellant properly reserved a certified question of law, challenging the stop and subsequent search of his vehicle during which the cocaine was discovered. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I believe Appellant in this case gave a valid consent for Trooper Hoppe to conduct a general search of Appellant’s car. I am also in agreement that in doing so Appellant consented for Hoppe to “at least touch items, including locked or sealed packages, contained within the vehicle.” However, the majority notes and rightfully so that this consent did not extend to tearing open a sealed package within the car. The majority sanctions Hoppe’s having done so on the basis of his testimony that he was trained in drug interdiction and that upon feeling a closed, heavily-taped cardboard or pasteboard box he was able to immediately recognize the contents as a “brick” of cocaine. With this last crucial bit of information along with the other circumstances of the stop, the majority concludes Hoppe had probable cause to open the package and discover the cocaine within.

The defendant, Jacob Allen Reynolds, pled guilty to one count of vandalism (Class C felony) and, after a sentencing hearing, was ordered to serve four years of confinement in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. Additionally, he was ordered to pay restitution to the victims in the amount of $11,407.75. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to four years of confinement. After careful review, we hold that no error exists and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jeffery Yates, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and attempted aggravated robbery. He contends that his sentences are illegal and, therefore, that his judgments of conviction are void. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for habeas corpus relief.

The Defendant, Travis Young, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless aggravated assault, and one count of intentionally evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sixteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) classified him as a Range II offender; (2) enhanced the Defendant’s sentences; and (3) imposed consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified, and we remand the case for entry of judgments consistent with this opinion.

In this consolidated appeal, the Appellants, Maurice Leonard and Kenneth Shondale Mason, appeal their convictions by a Bedford County jury. Following a joint trial, Leonard and Mason were convicted of aggravated burglary, attempted robbery, assault, and false imprisonment. As a result of these convictions, Leonard received an effective sentence of four years, as a Range I offender, and Mason received an effective sentence of sixteen years as a Range II offender. On appeal, Leonard and Mason each raise two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the sentences imposed by the trial court are excessive. Following review, we affirm the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences.

Indicted for rape of a child, the defendant, Eric Maxie, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated sexual battery. He appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because the record supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm the conviction.

The Petitioner, Michael Henderson, 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 requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief and has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Aggrieved of his robbery convictions, the petitioner, William H. Stitts, sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the Circuit Court of Madison County after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner presses his claim that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to ensure that a trial exhibit, a videotape of one of the robberies, was included in the appellate record on direct appeal. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.