APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Johnson County Circuit Court of multiple offenses, and he received a total effective sentence of twenty-two years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), renders his sentences void. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, which dismissal the petitioner appeals. The State 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. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is a direct appeal of the sentence imposed for an aggravated sexual battery conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). He now challenges his
sentence, raising three issues: 1) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing who had not been sequestered during prior testimony, 2) the trial court erred in applying one enhancement factor because it was also an element of the offense, and 3) the sentence was improperly enhanced in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The state appeals the McNairy County Circuit Court’s order suppressing drug-related evidence seized from the home of the defendant, Billy Dewayne Walker, pursuant to a search warrant. The state contends that the trial court erred in finding that the information contained in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search. We agree and reverse the trial court’s ruling.

The Appellant, Brian Carl Lev, appeals the denial of judicial diversion following his guilty pleas to two counts of statutory rape. After review, we reverse the sentencing decision of the trial court and remand for deferment of the proceedings as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (2003).

The petitioner, William P. Livingston, Jr., appeals the dismissal by the Hamblen County Criminal Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. After review of the record, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Author Ray Turner, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief contending that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) established a new rule of law that was retrospectively applicable to his case and entitled him to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. 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. 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 defendant, Christopher Kirkendall, was convicted of facilitation of attempted second degree murder and two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, holding that enhancement factors (3), (10), and (21) were applied in violation of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The state filed an application for permission to appeal to our supreme court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The supreme court granted the state's application and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration as a result of its opinion in State v. Edwin Gomez and Jonathan S. Londono, ___S.W.3d ___, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2005). Based upon the Gomez decision, the judgments of the trial court must be affirmed.

The appellant, James T. Brackins, pled guilty to robbery. As part of the plea agreement, the appellant received a six (6) year sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the appellant to serve the sentence in incarceration. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, John A. Judkins, Jr., appeals the sentencing decision of the DeKalb County Criminal Court following termination of his judicial diversion. Judkins was indicted for aggravated burglary and two counts of theft of property and was granted judicial diversion and placed on supervised probation for a period of three years. Simultaneously with the entry of an order of judicial diversion, a negotiated plea agreement was presented and approved by the court to the indicted offenses which provided that Judkins would receive two three-year sentences and one eleven month and twenty-nine day suspended sentence for the three crimes. The agreement further provided for concurrent sentences to be served on "straight probation." A probation violation warrant was subsequently issued alleging that Judkins had committed additional offenses. Following termination of judicial diversion, in the absence of a sentencing hearing, Judkins was sentenced to three years confinement in the Department of Correction. Judkins argues on appeal that the trial court erred by not imposing the effective three-year sentence of "straight probation" as provided in the plea agreement. After review, we conclude that the Sentencing Act does not contemplate the coexistent grant of judicial diversion and service of a sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement as the two are inconsistent in purpose. Accordingly, the trial court's consideration of the terms of the plea agreement in the sentencing decision was error. The case is, therefore, remanded to the trial court for a sentencing hearing.

The Defendant, Demarcus O'Shea Walker, pled guilty to various offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years, which it ordered the Defendant to serve on probation. While the Defendant was on probation, a probation violation report was filed and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered that the Defendant serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The petitioner, Kelvin A. Lee, appeals pro se from the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court denying his petition for habeas corpus relief without a hearing. Specifically, he alleges that he was improperly transferred from juvenile to criminal court and that the trial court failed to comply with the terms of his plea agreement. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner has not presented any claims that justify habeas corpus relief. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of his petition.

The Appellant, Donald Wayne Joiner, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court following revocation of probation. In July 2001 and July 2002, Joiner was convicted of multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses, resulting in an effective thirteen-year sentence in confinement with the Department of Correction. On October 28, 2003, while still an inmate in the Sullivan County Jail, Joiner escaped from confinement. At the time of Joiner's escape, in addition to the thirteen-year sentence, he was also under an effective eighteen-year suspended sentence, which was imposed consecutively to the thirteen-year sentence of confinement. Based upon Joiner's escape, his eighteen-year suspended sentence was revoked. On appeal, Joiner argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering confinement of the eighteen-year sentence instead of reinstating his probation. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this interlocutory appeal, the State challenges the trial court's suppression of various statements allegedly made by the defendant, Michael D. Street. At the suppression hearing, the trial court excluded the statements based solely upon the fact that the State failed to comply with discovery Rule 16(a)(1)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring notice to the defendant. The trial court did not reach the constitutionality of the statements or otherwise recite its reasoning for admission of some statements and exclusion of others. In consequence, we remand this matter to the trial court for further consideration and additional findings.

A Giles County Jury convicted the Petitioner, Kendrick F. Love, of multiple felony cocaine offenses, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentences. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner challenges the denial of post-conviction relief, specifically contending that trial counsel was ineffective in guaranteeing that he would be sentenced to a boot camp program when he was statutorily ineligible for it. Upon review, we agree with the post-conviction court that counsel did not guarantee boot camp but stated that it was a possibility, based upon the judge’s recommendation that the petitioner be admitted to the program. Moreover, the petitioner’s responses during the plea colloquy indicated that the petitioner understood the charges he pled to and the nature and consequences of his pleas. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Christopher T. Starnes, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of ten years with one year to be served in confinement and the balance to be served on intensive probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's revocation of his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for the cocaine conviction and three years for the marijuana conviction, to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). The Defendant argues two issues on appeal: 1) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty on both charges, and 2) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, Mitchell D. Strong, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court following the revocation of his community corrections sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal from convictions on a jury verdict of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony, and sale of a Schedule III controlled substance, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(c)(2) and (d)(1). The trial court determined the Defendant to be a
Range II, multiple offender and imposed nine- and seven-year sentences to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). The Defendant argues three issues on appeal: 1) the chain of custody was not sufficiently established to admit into evidence the drugs involved in the sales; 2) the two separate drug sale charges should have been merged into a single conviction; and 3) the sentences imposed were excessive due to the trial court’s failure to consider a mitigating factor. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This court granted Defendant’s petition to rehear to consider the impact of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) on Defendant’s sentence. Since that time, the Tennessee Supreme Court has considered the impact of Blakely on Tennessee’s sentencing scheme and concluded that the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989and its procedures do not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a jury as described in Blakely. See State v. Edwin Gomez, ____ S.W.3d _____, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD, 2005 WL 856848, at *22 (Tenn. Apr. 15. 2005). In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gomez, this court determines that Defendant’s argument that his sentence is improper under Blakely has no merit. This court’s previous opinion is affirmed in all respects. Costs are assessed against the State.

The defendant was indicted by the Carter County Grand Jury for two (2) counts of third offense DUI and one (1) count driving on a revoked license. The defendant filed a motion to suppress which was denied by the trial court. The defendant later agreed to a guilty plea subject to a certified question of law. The certified question, which is presented on appeal to this Court, is: whether the trial court erred by failing to hold that the defendant was unlawfully arrested without a warrant, for a misdemeanor (driving under the influence 2nd offense, and driving on a revoked license first offense), not committed in the presence of an officer, and not subject to an exception allowing warrantless arrests under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-7-103, thereby rendering any evidence gained from such unlawful arrest inadmissible, which would result in the dismissal of the indictment. We conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of the case, and we do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Avis N. Neal, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He seeks relief from his jury conviction for rape of a child and resulting sentence of twenty years in confinement. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Christopher Lance Shockley, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to four counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to eight years at 100% on each count and ordered that two of the sentences be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixteen years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition, contending that: (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas; and (2) the judgments and sentences violated his right to due process. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner's classification as a multiple rapist is an operation of law and does not require any notice to the petitioner or any further proceedings post-trial. As such, the convictions and sentences are not void, and we affirm the denial of habeas relief.

The appellant, Stephen Anthony Scott, has filed a petition for rehearing, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to have this Court reconsider its opinion previously filed in this case on June 7, 2005. Specifically, the appellant urges this Court to revisit its ruling that
the trial court properly applied sentence enhancement to count seven of his convictions. In his petition, the appellant contends that this Court misconstrued or “overlooked” his argument, though he admits that his argument was inartfully drawn in his appellate brief, stating, “the issue is not as precisely stated as it should have been.”