APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Jackie Glenn Allen, appeals the sentencing decision of the Lincoln County Circuit Court. Allen pled guilty to the crimes of rape and incest and was subsequently sentenced to concurrent sentences of ten years and six months for the rape and five years for the incest. After review of the record, we affirm the sentences as imposed.

The defendants, Andrew L. Collins and Terrance D. Grizzard, were each convicted of one count of aggravated assault. In addition, the defendant Collins pled guilty to one count of domestic assault and the defendant Grizzard was convicted of one count of reckless endangerment. Collins received an effective sentence of six years and Grizzard received an effective sentence of eight years. In this appeal, the defendant Collins asserts (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault and (2) that the trial court erred by providing a jury instruction on criminal responsibility. The defendant Grizzard asserts (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and (2) that his sentence is illegal. Because the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant Collins's conviction for aggravated assault, that conviction must be reversed and dismissed. Further, because the record establishes that there are clerical errors on the judgment forms relating to the defendant Grizzard, the cause must be remanded to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments. Otherwise, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant, Yvonne B. Ragland, was convicted on her guilty plea to Class D felony theft in the Knox County Criminal Court. The trial court denied her bid for judicial diversion and sentenced her to three years on probation. She appeals the denial of judicial diversion and the length of sentence imposed. Because the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion, we reverse and remand the case with instructions for the trial court to enter an order placing the defendant on judicial diversion with appropriate conditions.

Defendant, Patty D. Layland Smith, pled guilty to two counts of failure to appear, each offense being a Class E felony. Defendant was sentenced as a career offender and ordered to serve six years for each offense, to be served concurrently, with a sixty (60) percent release eligibility date. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and any other form of alternative sentencing. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that she was not eligible for probation or alternative sentencing. After a full review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Hall, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery. For these offenses, the defendant was sentenced as a repeat violent offender to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in consolidating the indictments for trial; (2) the trial court erred in sentencing him under the Repeat Violent Offender Act; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for two separate trials.

The Defendant, Shrone M. Hill, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him, as a Range I offender, to an effective sentence of eighteen years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it sentenced him to the maximum of six years for each count; and (2) the trial court erred when it ordered two of the five sentences to run consecutively to each other and consecutively to the three concurrent sentences. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Calvin Austin, was charged with violating probation. After a hearing in which the trial court revoked the appellant’s probation solely on the fact that the appellant received a new arrest, the appellant appealed. Because the trial court improperly revoked the appellant’s probation without a finding that the revocation was based on a preponderance of the evidence, we reverse the revocation of probation and remand the case for a hearing in which the trial court determines whether the preponderance of the evidence justifies a revocation.

The petitioner, Billy Jackson Coffelt, was convicted in 1983 of assault with intent to commit first degree murder and assault with intent to commit robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed a sentence of life for the conviction of assault with intent to commit first degree murder and a sentence of not less than ten and not more than twenty-one years for the conviction of assault with intent to commit robbery. There was no direct appeal. After seventeen years of protracted litigation, the post-conviction court granted the petitioner a delayed appeal of his convictions. At the same time, the post-conviction court denied the remaining claims in the petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner filed separate notices of appeal in each case. The cases were later consolidated by this court upon motion of the petitioner. The single issue presented in the petitioner's delayed appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. In his appeal of the denial of his post-conviction petition, the petitioner asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the judgments of conviction as to the delayed appeal are affirmed; however, because the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying relief must be reversed, the convictions vacated, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

This is a direct appeal as of right upon a certified question of law. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2).  The Defendants, Ricky Shackles and Carrie Anderson, were both convicted of simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor, following their entry of a guilty plea. Defendant Shackles received eleven months and twenty-nine days on probation, and Defendant Anderson received eleven months and twenty-nine days on judicial diversion. On appeal, the Defendants claim, pursuant to their reserved certified question, that as occupants of a parked car in a privately owned parking lot, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy which rendered the warrantless search of their car unconstitutional. Because the certified question of law is not dispositive of the Defendants’ case, we dismiss this appeal.

The defendant, Donnie Joe Hensley, appeals from his Greene County Criminal Court jury conviction of first degree murder. He claims on appeal that the trial court erred (1) in failing to dismiss the indictment because the juvenile court had transferred his case to criminal court without appointing a guardian ad litem, (2) in refusing to remand to juvenile court because a prosecution witness had lied in the juvenile court transfer hearing, and (3) in refusing to extend the plea cut-off date until the defendant attained his 18th birthday. The defendant also claims that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of premeditated first degree murder. We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the criminal court.

The defendants, Jose Rodriguez and Eladio Caballero Sanchez, were convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(j)(13) (2003). The trial court sentenced each defendant to twenty years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant Rodriguez asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) that the trial court erred by permitting a state witness to give improper opinion testimony; and (4) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a map created by a state witness. The defendant Sanchez asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts in violation of Rule 404(b); (3) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a document that was not provided to the defense prior to trial; (4) that the trial court erred by permitting a state witness to give improper opinion testimony; and (5) that the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant evidence regarding his ownership of property in Mexico. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Joe Anthony Ivy, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction 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 establish his entitlement to relief from an unconstitutional or invalid sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendant, Jarvis Taylor, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He received a sentence of life imprisonment for his felony murder conviction and a concurrent twenty year sentence for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review of the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Lee White, pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and three counts of sexual battery. He was sentenced to an effective eight-year sentence, suspended, and placed on intensive probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and placed his sentence into effect. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Larry J. Noel, was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, retaliation for past action, unlawful possession of a weapon, and driving on a revoked license. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of attempted first-degree murder. After our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A McNairy County jury found the defendant, Cedric P. Golden, guilty of possession of more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of five years and imposed a fine of $5,150.00. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Lonna K. Brewer, pled nolo contendere in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, a Class D felony. She received concurrent two-year sentences to be served as one day in jail and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, she contends that the trial court erred by denying her request for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Christopher Nicholas Orlando, was convicted by a DeKalb County jury of facilitation of first degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Orlando raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether he was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial because the State failed to (a) disclose the terms of a plea agreement with a key witness and (b) preserve exculpatory evidence; and (2) whether he was sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington. After a review of the record, we affirm.

Aggrieved of his aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape convictions, the petitioner, Scott M. Craig, sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the Criminal Court of Bradley County after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner presents several issues of the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Cory Lyn Clark, was convicted of second degree murder (Class A Felony) and sentenced to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a violent offender. The defendant contends on appeal that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he claimed self-defense; 2) the trial court improperly admitted his second statement to police because a tape recording of the statement was no longer available; and 3) the sentence was improper. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, that the defendant failed to preserve his appeal of the lost evidence by failing to object at trial, and that the sentence was proper.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Ricky R. Bryan, appeals the judgment of the Rutherford County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. Bryan was convicted of first degree murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Bryan argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of third party guilt in the homicide. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The appellant, Ricky Butler, filed a petition to rehear in accordance with Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure on June 29, 2006, following the release of the opinion of this Court on June 27, 2006. The opinion of this Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal because the appellant’s notice of appeal was filed outside the thirty day time limit.

The Appellant, Darryl Ford, proceeding pro se, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petition fails to raise a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis in which the petitioner alleged that newly-discovered evidence mandated a new trial. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for coram nobis relief after a hearing and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Latonya Yvonne Taylor, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of aggravated  robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of kidnapping. For these convictions, the Defendant received an effective twenty-three-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress her statement given to the police; (2) whether the trial court improperly limited the scope of the Defendant’s mother’s testimony; (3) whether theevidence is sufficient to support her conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping; and (4) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.