APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Van Buren County Jury found the Defendant, Leonard Dale Kincer, guilty of facilitation of the manufacture of one hundred grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on facilitation; (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing prejudicial information during its closing argument; and (4) the statute under which the Defendant was convicted is unconstitutional. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence, and remand for entry of an amended judgment in Count one.

The Appellant, Jerry Bell, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of theft of property under $500, one count of aggravated burglary, two counts of kidnapping, and two counts of rape.  As a result of these convictions, Bell received an effective sentence of fourteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Bell raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions, (2) whether the trial court’s ruling permitting introduction of his juvenile record was error, (3) whether the fines imposed by the trial court are excessive, and (4) whether he was sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm.

The Defendant, Terry Wayne Mitchell, pled guilty to burglary of an automobile and theft of property over $500.00, in case number 5504, and possession of a schedule IV controlled substance, in case number 5505. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years and six months, as a Range II offender, for each of the convictions in case 5504, and it sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the conviction in case 5505. The trial court further ordered that the two sentences in case 5504 would be served consecutively, and the sentence in 5505 would run concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by not recusing itself; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the Defendant's convictions and sentences.

The defendant, Anthony D. Parr, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of the sale of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he asserts: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the State failed to establish evidentiary chain of custody; and (3) the prosecutor made prejudicial comments in the State’s opening arguments.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Sammie Netters, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate his case adequately. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant, Shonda Kay Garcia, pled guilty to child abuse and neglect of a child six years of age or less, a Class D felony, in exchange for a two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Finding that the defendant lacked remorse and that a pattern of child abuse and neglect had been established, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for alternative sentencing and ordered that she serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals the denial of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Donald Blevins, was convicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of necessity and duress. The conviction and sentence are affirmed; the case is remanded for entry of an amended judgment to correct a clerical error.

The petitioner, Jimmy Jennett, Jr., appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the petition because he is "restrained of his liberty" by virtue of a 1977 Tennessee conviction that was used to increase his sentence for a 1985 Mississippi conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, James William Parsons, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he pled guilty to an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Anthony Norfleet, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Linda June Cross, was convicted by a jury in the Cumberland County Criminal Court of first degree murder. She was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that because her trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest in representing her, counsel was therefore ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

On February 2, 1999, the petitioner, Montez Antuan Adams, filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his 1997 Madison County Circuit Court convictions of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, and theft over $500, all of which were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Montez Antuan Adams, No. 02C01-9709-CC-00352 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Sept. 1, 1998). The post-conviction court  appointed counsel, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, it denied relief. The petitioner appealed in a timely manner. Following our review upon the record, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief.

In this interlocutory appeal arising from the Davidson County Criminal Court's order suppressing certain statements and writings made by the defendant, Steven John Chromik, III, the state claims that the trial court erred in finding the defendant's statements and writings constituted inadmissible hearsay. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements and writings because of violation of his rights under the United States and Tennessee constitutions. We affirm the trial court's judgment concerning the defendant's constitutional claims but reverse its suppression of the defendant's statements on evidentiary grounds, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Albert Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred.  He contends that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to his case, thereby creating an exception to the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. He further contends that the post-conviction court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the reason for his late filing of the petition. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that a valid exception to the one-year statute of limitations exists in his case or that the post-conviction court erred by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary denial of the petition.

The petitioner, David Johnson Hartsell, appeals the dismissal by the Johnson County Circuit Court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has moved this court to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. On review, this court affirms the order of dismissal.

The petitioner, Eric Bernard Chism, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, through which he had attacked his Madison County jury convictions of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and aggravated sexual battery. The post-conviction court determined that the petitioner failed to establish his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the record supports this adjudication and affirm the order.

The Defendant was convicted on a jury verdict of three counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced on all six convictions as a Range II offender to an aggregate sentence of eighty-four years with all sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support one of his robbery convictions and all three aggravated robbery convictions; and 2) the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences and by ordering all the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the convictions but modify the Defendant's sentences to an aggregate term of seventy-eight years.

The defendant, Steve Cornell Snipes, pled guilty in the Haywood County Circuit Court to possession of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant set forth sufficient facts establishing the credibility of the confidential informant. Based on our review, we affirm the order of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jason Brian Hargrove, pled guilty to multiple counts of theft and burglary and was ordered to serve an effective sentence of twenty (20) years. This Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Jason Brian Hargrove, No. M2001-01579-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1585638 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 18, 2002). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and arguing that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues that the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), requires a reduction in his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court and decline to modify the petitioner's sentence.

The defendant, Kenneth Carter, was indicted along with the co-defendant, Varnard Wheeler, for theft of property over $60,000. By agreement with the state, the defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of attempt to commit theft of property over $60,000, a Class C felony with a Range I sentence of six years. The trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered a sentence of ninety days in jail followed by supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred first by denying judicial diversion and second by denying immediate probation.

The Appellant, Clarence Keeley, d/b/a A-Bail Bond Company, appeals the order of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court denying his petition for reimbursement of the bond in the case of State of Tennessee v. Robert Bradley, Jr. On appeal, Keeley argues that the trial court erred in denying reimbursement of the $10,000 bail bond because (1) the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter a forfeiture on the bond which secured Bradley’s appearance in the general sessions court and (2) Bradley’s guilty pleas to the charges released A-Bail Bond Company from its surety obligations.  After review, we hold that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enforce the bail bond.  Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and reimbursement of the bond is ordered as provided below.

The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Rearno Vaughn, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

On appeal, the defendant challenges the revocation of his probation; specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based on the new charge of possession of prohibited weapons (sawed-off shotguns) when the weapons were not entered into evidence and their length was only estimated but never measured. Upon our review, we conclude that the deputy's estimation of the length of the weapons is sufficient to support revocation. Moreover, it is uncontroverted that the defendant had an outstanding payments owed to the court, which constitutes an additional ground for revocation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.