APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Carlos Angel, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Issac Scott, was convicted of first degree murder and received a life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Tayuana D. Taylor, appeals the trial court’s re-sentencing decision upon the revocation of her community corrections sentence. The Defendant claims that the trial court erred in sentencing her to the maximum allowable sentence and for not giving her credit for time already served. We conclude the trial court did not err in re-sentencing the Defendant and credit was given for time already served. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant, James Otis Butler, pled guilty to one count of delivery of over .5 grams of cocaine.  As a result, the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence, but ordered the appellant to serve the sentence on probation. Subsequently, several probation violation warrants were issued against the appellant. The trial court held a hearing, at which the appellant was not represented by counsel, and revoked the appellant’s probation. The trial court later rescinded that order and held a second hearing after appointment of counsel. After the second hearing, the trial court again revoked the appellant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in incarceration. The appellant argues on appeal that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to issue written findings of fact, failing to allow counsel to argue on his behalf at the probation revocation hearing, and failing to consider the appellant’s drug and alcohol treatment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Stephen Lee Noe, proceeding pro se, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court. Noe pled guilty to one count of statutory rape and, following a sentencing hearing, was placed on a two-year period of probation. On appeal, Noe argues that the trial court erred by not granting judicial diversion. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tavarski Childress, was convicted of first degree felony murder, reckless homicide, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged Defendant’s conviction of reckless homicide with his felony murder conviction, and Defendant was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for his felony murder conviction.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-two years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction, and ordered that this sentence be served consecutively to his life sentence. After filing a petition for post-conviction relief, Defendant was granted a delayed appeal. In his appeal, Defendant argues as plain error that the admission of his co-defendant’s statements to the police during the State’s re-direct examination of Sergeant Shemwell violated his constitutional right of confrontation. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm Defendant’s convictions of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as to the length of Defendant’s sentences, but remand for a new sentencing hearing to reconsider whether consecutive sentencing is appropriate.

The petitioner, Johnny McGowan, appeals the habeas corpus court’s orders dismissing his petitions for writs of habeas corpus and error coram nobis. Following our review, we affirm the orders of dismissal.

The defendant, Mitchell Lee Blankenship, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years, with one year to serve in confinement. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing by improperly weighing enhancement factors, not applying mitigating factors, and not granting him full probation. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient. Although the trial court erred in applying the multiple victims enhancement factor, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the trial court was justified. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Wayne Shelton, Jr., appeals the sentencing decision of the Bedford County Circuit Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Shelton pled guilty to aggravated assault and attempted arson and received an effective six-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, Shelton argues that the court erred in denying him an alternative sentence, specifically community corrections. After review, we affirm.

The defendant, Russell House, was convicted by a Sumner County Criminal Court jury of aggravated perjury, a Class D felony, for lying about his criminal history during his testimony at his probation revocation hearing. The trial court subsequently sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to two years, with six months to be served in the county jail and the balance of the time on supervised probation. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the probation revocation hearing judge and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Based on our review, 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 habeas corpus court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.  The Petitioner has appealed the habeas corpus court’s order dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas corpus court was correct in dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance
pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.   Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Marcellus Hurt, was convicted by a Madison County jury of three counts of misdemeanor theft, two counts of burglary of a vehicle, one count of felony vandalism over $500, one count of possession of burglary tools, and one count of misdemeanor evading arrest. As a result of these convictions, Hurt received an effective sentence of six years, eleven months, and twenty nine days in confinement. On appeal, Hurt raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the vidence is sufficient to support his convictions for burglary of a vehicle and possession of burglary tools; and (2) whether his sentence is excessive. Following review of the record, we affirm the convictions and sentences as imposed.

I join in the result, but write separately for the following reasons.

The defendant, Howard Gailand Bruff, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The murder convictions were merged, and the defendant received concurrent sentences of life and twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his convictions because the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to prove his identity as the assailant, that he committed a theft against the victim, that he had the requisite intent to rob the victim to be convicted of felony murder, or that he killed the victim with premeditation. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Tulinague Thandiwe, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court which resulted in the imposition of an eight-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Thandiwe challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing.  After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Stephen D. Lamb, was convicted by a Madison County jury of burglary, a Class D felony, and the misdemeanor offenses of possession of burglary tools and evading arrest. Lamb received an eight-year sentence for burglary and an eleven month and twenty-nine day sentence for each misdemeanor conviction. The misdemeanor sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the felony conviction. On appeal, Lamb raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress certain items found in Lamb’s possession at the time of his arrest; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting a police videotape; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; and (4) whether Lamb’s sentence
for burglary is excessive and whether the imposition of consecutive sentences is warranted. After review, the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences are affirmed.

The petitioner, Willie Johnson, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of burglary and theft over $500, for which he is serving eight years. He was sentenced to eight years on the burglary conviction and four years for theft, to be served concurrently. The petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel and argues that his attorney: (1) failed to provide him a list of the grand jurors who indicted him, including their racial make-up; (2) failed to consult him on every peremptory challenge; (3) failed to advise him to testify on his own behalf; (4) failed to persuade him to wear something other than his prison uniform at trial; and (5) failed to fully investigate and interview the witnesses in his case.  After careful review, we conclude that no basis to grant relief exists, and we affirm the postconviction court.

I concur in the results and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I disagree, however, with the opinion’s conclusion that the trial court properly instructed the jury that the culpable mental state of recklessness would satisfy the unlawful sexual penetration element in the offense of child rape.

Capital Appellant Michael Dale Rimmer appeals as of right his sentence of death resulting from the 1997 murder of Ricci Ellsworth. In November 1998, Appellant Rimmer was convicted of theft of property, aggravated robbery and premeditated first degree murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. On direct appeal, a panel of this Court affirmed  Appellant Rimmer’s convictions but, concluding that the sentencing verdict was “enigmatic and uncertain,” vacated the sentence of death and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. See State v. Michael D. Rimmer, No. W1999-00637-CCA-R3-DD, 2001 WL 567960, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 25, 2001). Accordingly, the case was remanded to the Criminal Court for Shelby County for re-sentencing. At the conclusion of the re-sentencing hearing in January 2004, the jury found the presence of one statutory aggravating circumstance, i.e., that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements  involved the use of violence to the person, T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997). The jury further determined that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a sentence of death. The trial court approved the sentencing verdict. Appellant Rimmer timely appeals presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for recusal; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a continuance; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding mitigation evidence; (4) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; (5) whether the jury instruction on reasonable doubt was error; (6) whether the Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify; (7) whether it was error for the jury to be informed that the Appellant had been on “death row;” (8) whether the jury verdict was complete; (9) whether cumulative error requires reversal; and (10) whether the Tennessee death penalty statutes are constitutional. After review, we find no error of law requiring reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s imposition of the sentence of death in this case.

The Petitioner, Nathaniel Benton, a/k/a, Nathan Gray filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court denied relief, and the Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his conviction and subsequent sentence for being a habitual criminal is void because the underlying convictions upon which the habitual criminal conviction is based are void. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The defendant, Albert R. Neese, appeals from jury convictions of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of rape of a child. The defendant also appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences which totaled twenty-eight years. The issues on appeal include challenges to the admissibility of a videotaped interview of the seven-year-old victim, the defendant’s pastor’s report to the police, and the victim’s statement to a social worker for medical diagnosis and treatment. The remaining issues are the propriety of the jury instructions as to the mens rea elements of child rape and the propriety of consecutive sentences. Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence as imposed.

The Defendant, Myrna Jill Johnson Halle, was convicted of reckless aggravated assault and received an effective sentence of twelve years in prison to be served at sixty percent. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and established that the Defendant acted in self-defense; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced her. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Michael A. Sullivan, filed an application for habeas corpus relief in the Williamson County Circuit Court to challenge his conviction in the Williamson County General Sessions Court for sixth offense driving on a revoked license. He was sentenced to 11 months, 29 days, with all but 65 days suspended on supervised probation. He contends that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 5(c) and Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-1-109 and 40-3-101 are unconstitutional and should not allow a defendant to waive an indictment. After careful review of the record, we conclude no grounds exist for granting habeas corpus relief and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Felix Lopez, pled guilty to manslaughter and received a negotiated out-of-range fifteen-year sentence, to be served at sixty percent. Subsequently, petitioner timely filed a post-conviction petition alleging he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. When the post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief, this appeal followed. After careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Faris Adb Al-Ali, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of rape of a child and received a twenty-two year sentence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner timely filed his pro se post-conviction petition. Following the appointment of counsel and filing of an amended petition, the post-conviction court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition. On December 1, 2005, the post-conviction court entered an order dismissing the petition. Petitioner appealed. We affirm the post-conviction court.