APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Ciondre T. Moore, alias, Ciondre T. Porter, was convicted in three separate cases of multiple offenses and sentenced to twelve years of intensive probation. Subsequently, two violation of probation warrants were issued, and the Defendant pled guilty to violating his probation. He then filed a pro se motion alleging that the trial court had made a clerical error by not giving him sentencing credit for the time that he had served on probation. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Colico Walls, was convicted by a jury of attempted aggravated robbery. His conviction was affirmed on appeal by this Court. See State v. Colico Walls, No. W2000-03008-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1381261 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 7, 2001). The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After counsel was appointed to represent the petitioner, three amended petitions were filed. The post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner appeals the judgment of the post-conviction court. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Jimmy Bernard Clark, was convicted by a Madison County jury of attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the Defendant received a twelve-year sentence as a career offender. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement made to the police and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Marvin L. Locke, appeals from his Bradley County Criminal Court convictions of selling methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance, in a school zone; possession of methamphetamine in a school zone with intent to sell; unlawful possession of a firearm; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that the sale and possession of methamphetamine (the subjects, respectively, of the first two counts of the indictment) occurred within 1,000 feet of a school. Following our review of the case, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Bobby Davis, appeals from the post-conviction court’s order dismissing his petition or post-conviction relief after finding that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations.  Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a). On appeal, the petitioner argues that his right to due process required the statute of limitations be tolled. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Marques Lanier Bonds, AKA “Mark,” was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of attempted second-degree murder, reckless aggravated assault, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to an effective term of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges: (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine regarding testimony of his prior incarceration; (2) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence; (3) the trial court’s acceptance of the jury’s verdict; and (4) the sentence imposed by the trial court. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we modify the judgments of the trial court to reflect the merger of the defendant’s aggravated assault conviction into his attempted second-degree murder conviction and his reckless endangerment conviction into his reckless aggravated assault conviction and affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects.

The appellant, Thomas R. Cook, III, was convicted by a jury of assault, resisting arrest and carrying a dangerous weapon. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days on probation after the service of thirty days in jail. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant argues that he was denied the right to testify because of an erroneous evidentiary ruling made by the trial court and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a review of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred in determining that the piece of evidence was admissible. However, because we are unable to determine from the record whether the error was reversible, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Willie Calvin Taylor, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Dyer County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had filed his petition outside the one year statute of limitations period. After review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The Defendant, Benny Ray Mitchell, was convicted of theft of property valued over $10,000 and for operation of a chop shop. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, a persistent offender, to twelve years for the theft conviction and ten years for the operation of a chop shop, and it ordered that the sentences run consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the jury was unable to render an unbiased verdict because one juror had a medical condition that he willfully failed to disclose. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court

The Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for sale of cocaine, less than 0.5 grams. Following a jury trial, the jury found the defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years to be served at thirty-five percent as a Range II multiple offender. The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court incorrectly allowed in testimony from two witnesses who were not qualified as experts. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Willam H. Grisham, II, was indicted on two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on each count of felony murder. The defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed consecutive life sentences for each of the murder convictions and a consecutive sentence of ten years for the robbery. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support any of the three convictions. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. This Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for first degree premeditated murder on direct appeal and remanded for a retrial on the defendant’s two charges of felony murder. Prior to his retrial, the defendant filed a motion stating that his prosecution for the felony murder charges is a violation of the principles of double jeopardy. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant now brings an interlocutory appeal to determine whether the principles of double jeopardy bar a trial on the two felony murder charges. We find that a retrial on the felony murder charges would not constitute double jeopardy and affirm the decision of the trial court.

The petitioner, James Donald Haynes, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant was convicted of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a career offender to thirty years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to his current sentence. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion to suppress the evidence; (2) by allowing a law enforcement officer to testify as an expert witness and disallowing defense counsel to fully cross-examine the witness; (3) by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation; (4) by not instructing the jury that evidence of mere association with others involved in criminal activity is insufficient to establish guilt; (5) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (6) in sentencing him as a career offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I join with the majority in affirming the defendant’s conviction but write separately for the reasons expressed below.

The Petitioner, Rafael Antonio Bush, was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault and received an effective twenty-two year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had not received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition after a hearing, and this appeal ensued. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the jury be instructed about accomplice testimony. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a direct appeal from a conviction on a jury verdict of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense. The Defendant, William LarryLittles, filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless seizure, alleging the police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop that led to the seizure. The Defendant’s motion to suppress was denied. Following his conviction he was sentenced to eighteen months in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). This sentence was suspended, and he was ordered to serve 180 days in jail followed by supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant raises a single issue: that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, James C. Osborne, was convicted by a jury of rape, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to twelve years at 100%. He now appeals his conviction and sentence. After thorough review, we conclude that no reversible error is present. The judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed.

The defendant, Mark Edward Ellis, pled guilty to felony escape, a Class E felony. In exchange for his guilty plea, the defendant was sentenced to one year as a standard offender, which was to run consecutive to his prior sentences. On appeal, the defendant argues that the circuit court erred by denying his request for suspension of this sentence. Following our review of the parties’ briefs and applicable law, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

I concur in the reasoning and result reached in the majority opinion save in one area. I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that the defendant’s right to confrontation was forfeited by virtue of his wrongfully killing the victim. The majority opinion essentially holds that wrongfully causing the victim’s unavailability to testify at the defendant’s trial for murdering the victim forfeits the defendant’s right to confrontation, which allows all relevant statements by the victim to be admitted into evidence. I believe the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine should require that the defendant procure the absence of the declarant with the intent that the declarant not be a witness.

The defendant, Leslie A. Pryor, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one count of theft over $10,000, one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, one count of felony evading arrest, one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, three counts of reckless endangerment, and one count of criminal impersonation. The trial court merged the reckless endangerment and attempted voluntary manslaughter convictions with the greater charge of aggravated assault, and the defendant was given an effective sentence of forty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated assault. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Judge Brooks, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the trial court improperly admitted the victim’s prior statements into evidence under the hearsay rule’s forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), and in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the appellant’s prior assault on the victim pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); and (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. While we conclude that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay into evidence, we conclude that the error was harmless and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Antonio Young, appeals from the order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Earnest Banks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated burglary and sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. 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.

The defendant, James Timothy Taylor, was convicted in a Robertson County bench trial of one count of passing a forged check, a Class E felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a copy of the original check. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.