APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Claude Francis Garrett, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of first degree felony murder, which resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, he claims that (1) the convicting evidence was insufficient; (2) three prosecution witnesses presented false testimony; (3) the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony; (4) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on various points of law; (5) the trial court erred in failing to require a witness to answer defense counsel's questions on cross-examination; (6) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for the payment of travel expenses for a non-resident witness; (7) the state withheld exculpatory evidence; and (8) he was denied due process of law. Following our review, we affirm the conviction.

Aggrieved of the Davidson County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner, Danny Ray Meeks, appeals. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not make a partial payment of the filing fee as required by Code section 41-21-807. Although we believe that the court acted precipitantly, we affirm the order of dismissal on the basis that the petition fails to establish a claim for habeas corpus relief.

The defendant, Kenneth Ray Brasher, was convicted of theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. His sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, 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 allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendant, Ronnie Misher, was convicted of three counts of burglary of a vehicle and three counts of theft under $500. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-402(a)(4), - 103, -105(1) (2003). The trial court imposed a sentence of six years for each burglary conviction and a sentence of eleven months
and twenty-nine days for each theft conviction. The trial court ordered that two of the burglary sentences be served consecutively and the remainder of the sentences be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of twelve years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, James T. Spurling, appeals the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of his pro se petition as untimely. Because the petitioner's claims, when taken as true, allege attorney misrepresentation concerning the filing of a post-conviction petition, we conclude that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine: (1) whether due process tolled the limitations period because counsel did, in fact, assure the petitioner that he would continue his representation through the filing of a post-conviction petition; and if so, (2) whether the petitioner was within the reasonable opportunity afforded him by due process. Therefore, we reverse the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing.

Aggrieved of his Davidson County Criminal Court conviction of driving under the influence (DUI), a class A misdemeanor, the defendant, Robert G. Laney, appeals and claims only that the evidence of his physical control of the motor vehicle was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm the conviction.

The Petitioner, Vanory Askew, pled guilty to intent to sell or deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon with intent to employ it in the commission of an offense, and he was sentenced to eighteen years. Subsequently, the Petitioner pled guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount under .5 grams and was sentenced to four years in the Department of Correction to be served concurrently with his previous sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that: (1) the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and denying his request for the appointment of counsel; and (2) the concurrent sentence he received for his 2003 conviction was illegal, because he was on parole at the time of the offense. The trial court dismissed the petition, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case for the appointment of counsel, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Petitioner, Charles Damien Darden, 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 allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, James D. Cooks, Jr., of assault and theft of property valued less than five hundred dollars, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for each offense. The appellant appeals,
claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Karlis Williams, pleaded guilty on January 14, 2003, to three counts of robbery and six counts of misdemeanor theft of an amount less than $500. By plea agreement with the state, the petitioner received an effective seven-year sentence, as a Range II multiple offender. The petitioner subsequently filed with the Shelby County Criminal Court a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that as a result, his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made. He also raised a challenge to his sentence based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner brings the instant appeal challenging that denial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Edgar Goodwin, was convicted of domestic aggravated assault and sentenced to eight years to be served on probation. Later, the trial court revoked probation and ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court abused it discretion by revoking probation. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Dolwin Deon Cormia, of first degree murder and abuse of a corpse, and the trial court imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole plus a concurrent two year sentence. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the Petitioner's application for permission to appeal. The Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing on the post-conviction petition, the trial court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

On December 17, 1999, Defendant, Henry Martinez, pled guilty to the Class A felony offense of conspiracy to sell more than 300 pounds of marijuana. Under the negotiated plea agreement, he received a sentence of fifteen (15) years as a Range I, standard offender. Also, pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, the State dismissed a charge of possession with intent to deliver seventy (70) pounds of marijuana within 1000 feet of a school, as long as he testified truthfully against his co-defendants in the case. On July 19, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was denied by the trial court and defendant has appealed to this Court. The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the motion has merit, grant same, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Christopher Lawrence Milliken, pled guilty to one count of resisting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search; one count of simple possession of marijuana; and one count of violating the implied consent law. In conjunction with his guilty pleas, the Defendant reserved a certified question of law for this Court's consideration. Because the certified question of law is not dispositive of the Defendant's case, we dismiss this appeal.

This is an appeal as of right from a denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant, Wade P. Tucker, was convicted of attempted first-degree murder pursuant to a guilty plea, and especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary following a bench trial. The Defendant was sentenced to twenty-four years in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). This Court upheld the Defendant's attempted murder and especially aggravated robbery convictions on direct appeal, but reversed the conviction for aggravated burglary. See State v. Wade P. Tucker, No. M2001-02298-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1574998 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 17, 2002). The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied. The Defendant now appeals denial of post-conviction relief, arguing: (1) his conviction for attempted first degree murder is void due to a faulty guilty plea; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Bernardo C. Lane, petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. This direct appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal as of right from jury verdict convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and theft of property. The Defendant, Lester James Farris, Jr., was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective twenty year sentence. The Defendant argues three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to law enforcement officers; (2) there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the three offenses for which he was convicted; and (3) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Ronnie D. Sims, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery, one count of vandalism, and one count of possession of burglary tools. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to seventeen years in the Department of Correction for the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of six years for the vandalism conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the burglary tools offense. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence; claims that his right to a fair trial was compromised by the State's loss of evidence; and complains that his seventeen year sentence for the aggravated robbery is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Louise Dawson Marlow, pled nolo contendere to reckless homicide and agreed to a sentence of seven years as a Range II, multiple offender. The trial court sentenced the defendant to one year in confinement followed by six years in community corrections. This Court concluded on direct appeal that the defendant was not eligible for community corrections and remanded for re-sentencing. Upon remand, the trial court re-sentenced the defendant to serve her entire sentence in confinement. The defendant again appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in re-sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Darrell E. Braddock, 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 allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Mark Steven Parker, 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 petition was filed outside the applicable statute of limitation and is, therefore, time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Joe Clark Mitchell, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss and expunge. The State has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The petitioner, Calvin J. Grissette, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's order dismissing his November 2, 2004 petition for post-conviction relief that challenged his 2003 convictions of second degree murder and attempt to commit second degree murder. In his petition, the petitioner claimed infirmity in his convictions due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the record supports the post-conviction court's denial of relief, we affirm.

The petitioner, William Binkley, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of attempted first degree murder and reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective twenty-five-year sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief, and the petitioner appealed. The State argues that the appeal should be dismissed because the petitioner filed his post-conviction petition outside the one-year statute of limitations. We conclude that the case should be remanded in order for the post-conviction court to determine whether the petition was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations. Regarding the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we hold that the post-conviction court properly ruled that the petitioner did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel.