APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Kendrick Naylor, was convicted by a jury of criminal attempt to commit assault, felony evading arrest, and theft of property over $10,000. The trial court sentenced the appellant to four (4) years as a Range II multiple offender for the evading arrest conviction and six (6) months for the attempt to commit assault conviction, to run concurrently to the sentence for evading arrest.  The trial court sentenced the appellant to eight (8) years for the theft of property conviction, to be served consecutively to the four-year sentence for evading arrest, for a total effective sentence of twelve (12) years. After a motion for new trial was denied by the trial court, a timely notice of appeal was filed. On appeal, the following issues are presented for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and the appellant’s sentence because we determine that the appellant’s history of criminal convictions more than justifies the sentence imposed.

The appellant, Robbie O. Allen, entered Alford pleas in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to two counts of felony failure to appear. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant on each count to two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Greg Harris, of criminal conspiracy to sell or deliver more than 300 grams of cocaine, a Class A felony; possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine for resale within 1000 feet of a school, a Class A felony; and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for each felony conviction, and concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction, for an effective sentence of fifty years. The jury fined him a total of $1,005,000. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (3) the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant evidence and allowing prosecutorial misconduct without declaring a mistrial; (4) the jury verdict lacked unanimity because the state failed to elect either sale or delivery in count one of the indictment; (5) his right to a fair trial was violated by the fact he lacked certain materials necessary to prepare for trial, i.e., a map depicting the area surrounding the location of his arrest, a transcript of the suppression hearing, and a list of potential jurors; and (6) the trial court erred by imposing excessive and consecutive sentences. We affirm the defendant's convictions. However, we hold the record is insufficient to justify the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences and, in light of the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify the defendant's sentences to twenty-four years for each felony conviction.

The Defendant, Melissa Simmons, pled guilty to driving under the influence, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. As part of the plea agreement, she intended to reserve the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). Because the judgment form failed to comply with the strict requirements of Rule 37(b)(2), defendant did not properly reserve a certified issue for review. As a result, we are without jurisdiction to review the merits of defendant's claim, and accordingly dismiss her appeal.

The petitioner, Kevin Troy Greer, appeals the dismissal by the Davidson County Criminal Court of his petition for post-conviction relief and request for a delayed appeal. After review of the record, we affirm.

The petitioner, Wilbert Rogers, appeals the denial of post conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial attorney. The petitioner was originally convicted by jury of second degree murder. After careful review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

A jury convicted the defendant, Edward E. Keathley, of simple possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and of possession of drug paraphernalia, Class A misdemeanors. Following a sentencing hearing, the defendant was fined a total of $900.00 and sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each offense. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the sentences in concurrent split confinement with ninety days in the county jail and the balance of the sentence on probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Based upon our review, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Thomas M. Tucker, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from an allegedly void judgment, which the trial court dismissed without a hearing. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition. Finding no error in the judgment of the habeas corpus court, we affirm its dismissal of the petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief.

he Defendant, Richard P. Holt, pled guilty to various drug related felonies in four separate cases, and he was placed on community corrections, and then transferred to supervised probation for a period of eight years. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was issued because the defendant left the state without permission, and the defendant was indicted and arrested for theft of property valued over $500.00. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered the defendant to serve the remainder of his sentences in prison. The defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to revoke the defendant's probation; and (2) the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Kenneth I. Campbell, was convicted of first degree murder and theft of property and received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. He later sought both direct and post-conviction appeals, both of which were denied by this court. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, which was dismissed.  He appeals that dismissal, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without ordering DNA testing on a bullet introduced at the petitioner’s trial. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.

The Petitioner Steven L. Anderson 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. 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.

The Defendant, Karen Renee Howell, pled guilty to three counts of first degree felony murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of theft over $1,000. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to three consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole for the murders, a consecutive term of twenty-five years for the attempted murder, and a concurrent effective term of twenty-five years for the remaining convictions. The Defendant's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Howell, 34 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that her guilty pleas and sentencing were marred by the ineffective assistance of counsel, and that her guilty pleas were not entered voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly. After a hearing, the trial court denied relief. This direct appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Marquez Winters, was found guilty by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of attempted first degree murder and aggravated kidnapping. He received a total effective sentence of thirty-seven years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals that ruling. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Andre Mayfield, filed for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to invalidate several convictions he obtained in 1989. The State responded by filing a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the State's motion and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant, John Allan Lezotte, entered pleas of guilt to driving under the influence and child endangerment, reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2). The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion to suppress. The judgments are affirmed.

The petitioner, Randall Edwin Cobb, appeals pro se from the order of the Obion County Circuit Court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief for failure to state a claim. The petitioner pled guilty in June 2000 to one count for possession of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, with the intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class B felony, and on two counts for sale of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school zone, each a Class B felony. In this appeal, he challenges: (1) whether the trial court properly dismissed his habeas corpus petition; (2) whether the petition stated a claim for relief; (3) whether the judgments are void; and (4) whether the indictments were defective. After reviewing the matter, we affirm the decision of the trial court, but remand for entry of corrected judgments.

The Appellant, Michael Woods, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. On appeal, Woods raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to use Woods’ prior criminal convictions for purposes of impeachment when the convictions were more than ten years old; (3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow Woods to present proof that two other co-defendants had been convicted of the crime; and (4) whether the sentence is excessive. After review of the record, we find that because Woods’ motion for new trial was not timely filed, issues 2 and 3 are waived. After review of issues 1 and 4, we find no error and affirm the conviction and resulting sentence.

I concur in the results reached and most of the reasoning used in the majority opinion. I disagree, though, with the conclusion that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), does not affect the sentencing. However, I believe the defendant’s history of criminal of convictions justifies the sentence he received.

The petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial of a delayed appeal by which to present his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner’s due process right to appeal was not violated simply because he failed to take action to secure representation. The record reflects that the petitioner was not declared indigent and that the onus in obtaining representation rested with him. His coram nobis petition was outside the applicable statute of limitations and was properly dismissed. We affirm.

The defendant, Michael Paul Mondell, was convicted of facilitation of the second degree murder of his father, Francis Mondell. The trial court imposed a 12-year Department of Correction sentence. The defendant appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the propriety of the sentence. We affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to eight years.

Defendant, James C. Leveye, entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of more than 0.5 grams of marijuana with intent to sell, a Class E felony. The trial court imposed the recommended sentence of four years as a Range III persistent offender. As a part of the plea agreement, Defendant reserved a certified question of law under Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure arguing that the trial court erred in not suppressing the marijuana and drug paraphernalia discovered during a search of Defendant's person. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and second degree murder, raising two claims: (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Richard Simon, filed a "Petition for Declaratory Judgment and/or Equitable Relief" and a pro se "Petition Seeking Nunc Pro Tunc Order" requesting the trial court to modify or correct his sentence to grant him retroactive sentence reduction credits. The trial court concluded that it was without jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence, and dismissed his petitions. Because there is no right of appeal from the trial court's dismissal of Defendant's motions, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellant, James Thomas Jefferson, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court should have granted his petition for post-conviction relief because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction as to lost or destroyed evidence, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the chain of custody. Because we find these issues to be without merit, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Aaron T. James, was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping and the trial court imposed a sentence of sixty years. In this appeal, he asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by limiting the questioning of a witness; (3) that the trial court erred by refusing to provide a jury instruction on the defense of necessity; (4) that the trial court committed plain error by permitting the state to make improper commentary on the law during closing argument; and (5) that the trial court erred by ordering that the defendant serve the sentence he received in this case consecutively to the sentence for a previous conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.