APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Charles Goode, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  In this appeal, Petitioner argues that his counsel’s representation at trial was deficient because he failed to adequately investigate Petitioner’s case and failed to effectively cross-examine the victim.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Respectfully, I find I cannot fully concur in the opinion because, based upon the absence of a contemporaneous objection, it treats as waived the issue of the trial court’s “reading the aggravated kidnapping as a lesser-included offense out of order during the charge to the jury.”   The instructional problem alleged is one of instructional error, not instructional omission. In the case of the former, no contemporaneous objection is required, unlike when an instruction is omitted. See, e.g., State v. Johnny Wade Meeks, No. 03C01-9811-CR-00411, slip op. at 8-9 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 3, 1999).

The defendant, Terry Boyd Collins, stands convicted by a Sullivan County jury of arson and presenting a fraudulent insurance claim, for which he received an effective nine-year sentence. Aggrieved of his sentence and convictions, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and claims that prosecutorial comments during closing arguments constitute reversible error, that the trial court's sentencing determination conflicted with the mandates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and that the trial court erred when denying all forms of alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the lower court.

The appellant, Donald Luke Seiber, was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and two counts of sexual battery, and he received a total effective sentence of sixteen years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, the trial court’s jury instructions, and sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s convictions but remand for a new sentencing hearing.

The petitioner, Jesse Teasley, appeals from the trial court's order denying 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 a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted following a jury trial in Knox County for arson and aggravated burglary, as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant six (6) months confinement and five (5) years and (6) months on probation to be followed by a second six (6) year sentence to be served entirely on probation. The defendant argues three (3) issues on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing testimony at trial contrary to the defendant's motion in limine which was granted by the trial court; and (3) the defendant's sentence was imposed contrary to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ----, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). After a careful review of the record, we affirm the defendant's convictions and remand for resentencing.

This appeal is before us following the reopening of Petitioner's post-conviction petition for the limited purpose of determining whether Petitioner is mentally retarded and thus ineligible for the death penalty pursuant to our supreme court's decision in Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001) and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242 (2002). The post-conviction court ultimately determined that Petitioner had failed to prove that he was mentally retarded and that the weight of the proof was that he was not mentally retarded. Accordingly, the court denied Petitioner's request for a new trial and denied and dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal as of right, this court must determine the following issues: (1) whether Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally retarded; (2) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203, as interpreted by the supreme court in Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004), is constitutional in light of the principles outlined in Atkins v. Virginia; and (3) whether the absence of mental retardation is an element of capital murder requiring the State to bear the burden of proof and requiring submission of the issue to a jury. After review of the record and the applicable law, we find no errors of law requiring reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, James Ray Bartlett, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal as of right, the petitioner asserts that the judgments of conviction for aggravated assault and four counts of theft are void because the sentences are illegal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Antonio Gibson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner, Tabatha R. White, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced her to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that (1) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence and (2) that she received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel because her attorney failed to object to hearsay testimony, failed to request a circumstantial evidence instruction, failed to file pretrial motions requesting that the State reveal any plea bargain agreements it had made with the State's witnesses, and denied her the right to testify. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Gay N. Yarbro, was convicted by a jury of introducing a controlled substance into a penal institution. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction for this offense, to be served consecutively to a sentence for
a prior conviction. Additionally, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community corrections sentence for the prior conviction and ordered him to serve the original sentence in confinement. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for introducing a controlled substance into a penal institution and further challenges the length of his sentence for that offense. The Defendant also challenges the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence on the prior conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the instant conviction, and further affirm the trial court’s order of revocation.

The Appellant, Jimmy M. Millican, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Millican argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The defendant, Joseph Gunter, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of life without parole and twenty years, respectively. On appeal, he contends that the jury was exposed to extraneous prejudicial information about his case; the trial court erred in various of its evidentiary rulings and made improper commentary on the evidence; the State deprived him of potentially exculpatory evidence by failing to perform scientific testing on physical evidence recovered from the crime scene and by withholding new evidence discovered after the trial; and the cumulative effect of the various errors resulted in the denial of his right to a fair trial. The State argues, inter alia, that the defendant's appeal should be dismissed because his motion for a new trial was untimely. We agree with the State, and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

The Petitioner, Nicholas Sanders, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief 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 grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is an appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict of aggravated robbery, and an appeal by the State from the sentencing decision. The Defendant originally received an enhanced sentence of eighteen years as a Range II, multiple offender, but his sentence was subsequently reduced to fifteen years by the trial court based upon Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). On appeal, the Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. The State appeals the modified sentence, arguing the trial court erred in reducing the Defendant's sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the conviction, but remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.

The Defendant, Lonnie Lee Owens, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, abuse of a corpse, and theft over $10,000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years for the murder, one year for the abuse of a corpse, and four years for the theft. The trial court ordered these sentences to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction for an effective term of thirty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentence for the murder and also challenges the trial court's order that his sentences be served consecutively. We reduce the Defendant's sentence for the second degree murder conviction to twenty-four years. We further reverse the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences.

The Appellant, Lonnie M. Maclin, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, misdemeanor reckless endangerment, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, reckless aggravated assault, and two counts of aggravated assault.  As a result of these convictions, Maclin received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Maclin raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the indictment was invalid for failure to provide “adequate notice of the offenses charged in the indictment, or the court erred in the instruction to the jury”; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for felony murder; and (3) whether his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping violates State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of
conviction.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Angie Delene Jackson, was convicted of driving a commercial vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater, a Class A misdemeanor, and for violation of the motor carrier safety rules and regulations, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for each conviction. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the results of her blood alcohol test; (2) that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the evidence discovered during a search of her vehicle; and (3) that the trial court erred in ordering Defendant to serve five percent of her effective sentence in confinement. We find that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence discovered during a search of her vehicle. We find the trial court's error harmless as to Defendant's DUI conviction, and affirm that conviction. Because we find the evidence insufficient, however, to support Defendant's conviction for violation of the motor carrier safety rules and regulations, we reverse it and dismiss that charge. We further reverse Defendant's sentence for her DUI conviction and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

The appellant, Michael Carnell Jones, appeals from the trial court's revocation of his community corrections sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Michael Dean Baugh, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of burglary and theft of property under $500. He was sentenced as a multiple offender to seven (7) years, six (6) months for the burglary conviction and eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days for the theft conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the charges against him and that his sentence is excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Reggie Estes, was convicted by a Haywood County jury of vehicular homicide by intoxication and was sentenced to fourteen years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, Estes raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; and (2) whether he was sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm.

The petitioner, Steven Paul Deskins, was convicted of seven (7) counts of rape of a child and four (4) counts of aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, this Court reversed one (1) of the petitioner's convictions for aggravated sexual battery, finding that it violated due process and double jeopardy, but otherwise affirmed the remaining convictions. See State v. Steven Paul Deskins, No. M2002-01808-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 21957083 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 14, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 5, 2004). The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Bryan John Drost, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver, and he was subsequently sentenced to ten years and six months confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s
denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the affidavit given in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause because: (1) it failed to establish that the informant was, as alleged, a citizen informant; and (2) the affidavit failed to demonstrate the informant's reliability and credibility as required by Jacumin. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Deon Larkins, was convicted by a jury of carjacking. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twelve (12) years. On appeal, the appellant argues: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to sustain the objections regarding hearsay; (3) that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on a false warrant; (4) that the trial court should have granted a mistrial because the jury made a statement that was unfairly prejudicial; (5) that the appellant's constitutional rights were violated because of a "second setting" of the jury after the first panel of jurors was dismissed; (6) that the trial court erred by not "bringing" a material witness to testify; (7) that the evidence was insufficient to support the appellant's conviction; and (8) the appellant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the evidence, we determine that a number of the appellant's first six (6) issues are waived for failure to prepare an adequate record for our review. As to the remaining issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.