APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Quentin Lewis, appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The allegations contained in the petition fail to establish either a void judgment or an expired sentence. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The defendant appeals her conviction for first degree premeditated murder. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and contends that the trial court erred in disallowing cross-examination of an unavailable witness. We affirm the conviction.

The Defendant, Anthony Williamson, was convicted by a jury of robbery. He was subsequently sentenced as a Range III offender to serve fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Finding the evidence legally sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Anthony Davidson, appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the remainder of the sentence to be served. The judgment is affirmed.

The Appellant, David Ivy, appeals as of right his sentence of death resulting from the June 2001 murder of Lakisha Thomas. On January 10, 2003, a Shelby County jury found Ivy guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously found the presence of two statutory aggravating circumstances, i.e., Ivy had previously been convicted of a violent felony offense and the murder was committed to avoid prosecution. The jury further determined that these aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of death. The trial court approved the sentencing verdict. Ivy appeals, as of right, presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator, (2) whether the trial court improperly permitted hearsay statements of the victim to be admitted into evidence, (3) whether the trial court erred by impaneling an anonymous jury, (4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit the defense, during closing argument, to discuss the rationale behind the hearsay exclusion, (5) whether the trial court erred by preventing defense counsel from arguing “residual doubt” as a non-statutory mitigating circumstance, (6) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce evidence that Ivy had previously been charged with first degree murder, (7) whether the trial court’s instruction that Ivy’s prior offenses were offenses whose statutory elements involved the use of violence violated his right to trial by jury, (8) whether the death penalty imposed in this case violated due process because the indictment failed to allege the aggravators relied upon by the State, (9) whether the trial court erred in refusing to answer the jury’s questions as to the consequences if they were unable to reach an unanimous verdict as to punishment, and (10) whether Tennessee’s death penalty statutory scheme is unconstitutional. Finding no error requiring reversal, we affirm Ivy’s conviction and sentence of death.

The Defendant, Jon Seiler, pled guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), second offense. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Christopher Demotto Linsey, appeals from the judgment of the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his community corrections sentences. Linsey pled guilty to aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and theft of property over $1,000.00 and, for these convictions, he received an effective eight-year sentence to be served in the Community Corrections Program. On November 21, 2002, a warrant was issued, alleging that Linsey violated the terms of his community corrections agreement based upon new arrests for domestic assault and possession of illegal drugs for resale and of drug paraphernalia. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered revocation of his community corrections sentences, and further ordered that his sentence for aggravated robbery be increased to ten years and that he serve the remainder of his now effective ten-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Linsey argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that a violation occurred, (2) the trial court, in resentencing him to ten years for aggravated robbery, failed to conduct a sentencing hearing as required by the 1989 Sentencing Act, and (3) his sentences are excessive in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Maury County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Terrance Cecil, of possessing twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to ten years to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Deborah Graham, appeals the trial courts denial of her 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.

I concur with the majority opinion in all respects save its treatment of the question whether the appellant waived his right to review alleged sentencing error vis-a-vis Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). First, a number of members of this Court, including the author of this concurring opinion, have concluded that Blakely review is not waived because the appellant failed to raise the issue at trial after Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000); was decided but before Blakely was decided, so long as the case was pending on direct appeal at the time of the Blakely decision. See e.g. State v. Ricky Grover Aaron, No. M2002-02288-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1533825 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Jul. 8, 2004); State v. Charles Benson, No. M2003-02127-CCA-R3-CD, 2004WL2266801 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 8,2 004); State v. Julius E. Smith, No. E2003-01059-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1606998 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 19, 2004); State v. Michael Wayne Poe, No. E2003-00417-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 wl 1607002 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 19, 2004). These cases rest on the proposition that Blakely establishes a new rule in this State with respect to sentencing, one that was not dictated by the existing precedent of Apprendi. State v. Ricky Gover Aaron, No. M2002-02288-
CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1533825 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Jul. 8, 2004); State v. Charles Benson, 2004 WL 2266801 at *8; see also Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct at 2549-50 (O’Connor, J. Dissenting).

The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s sentences for aggravated assault and theft are required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

The petitioner, James William Parsons, Jr., appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1999, he pled guilty to theft of property over $1000, arson, consuming alcohol while under the age of twenty-one, and possession of a weapon in the commission of an offense and was sentenced to an effective sentence of two years and one day, with all but 120 days to be served on probation. He was subsequently convicted on separate charges in federal court and sentenced to the federal penitentiary. The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Greene County Criminal Court, claiming that his state plea agreement was illegal and void and therefore it was improper for the federal court to use the state convictions to enhance his federal sentence. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing on the matter, and the petitioner appealed. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Jeffery D. Hostetter, pled guilty to one count of furnishing intoxicating alcoholic beverages to a person under twenty-one years of age in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-15-404, a Class A misdemeanor, without a recommendation as to sentencing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with fifty percent of the sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the period of confinement imposed by the trial court is excessive and inconsistent with sentencing principles, and the trial court improperly applied enhancement factors and failed to apply appropriate mitigating factors. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Stacy McKinley Taylor, was convicted of aggravated assault, criminal impersonation, theft, speeding, and evading arrest he received following a jury trial in the Sullivan County Criminal Court. On appeal, he claims that the aggravated assault conviction is unsupported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court erred in sentencing him. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the conviction of aggravated assault but modify the sentences.

The petitioner, Laconia Lamar Bowers, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, see State v. Laconia Lamar Bowers, No. E1999-00170-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 15020 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Jan. 11, 2000), and on appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. See State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2001). The petitioner now seeks post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

The Appellant, Kenneth M. Holliday, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court. On appeal, Holliday argues that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his request for alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Leslie Carl Clark, pled guilty to driving on a revoked license, violation of the implied consent law and driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days for each offense, said sentences to be served concurrently in the local workhouse. It is from this order that the Defendant appeals. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jeffrey A. Utley, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court found that the petition did not set forth grounds which would entitle the Defendant to habeas corpus relief. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Petitioner, Miko T. Burl, was convicted of aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. On direct appeal, this Court vacated the Petitioner’s aggravated assault conviction, but affirmed all of the Petitioner’s other convictions. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the Petitioner’s petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because the Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective.  Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Romelus Caraway, was indicted for felony Escape. A Shelby County Jury convicted the Defendant of the indicted offense, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to six years, after it determined the Defendant was a career offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied him a new trial because: (1) the indictment against the Defendant was fatally defective and the trial court allowed the State to use this defective indictment to prove essential elements of the offense for which he was charged; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant, Harry Jamieson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the  ial court. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, __ U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify the appellant’s sentence for aggravated robbery to eight years and the sentences for aggravated assault to three years each, for an effective sentence of eight years incarceration. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Steven Frederick Brinkley ¹, was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"), second offense, and violation of the implied consent law. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain his conviction for DUI because: (1) he was not in "physical control" of his vehicle; and (2) the parking lot where his vehicle was located was not a premises frequented by the public at large. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, John Whatley, was convicted by a jury in the Maury County Circuit Court of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the appellant to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's actions as thirteenth juror, the specificity of the indictment, the trial court's instructions regarding lesser-included offenses, the trial court's evidentiary rulings, sentencing, and the denial of his motion for new trial. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court; however, in light of Blakely v. Washington, __ U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify the appellant's sentence to eleven years.

The appellee, Freddie William Lewis, was indicted for custodial interference after allegations arose that he moved his child to another state in violation of a juvenile court order. The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that a default judgment taken against him in juvenile court on the paternity petition, which later formed the basis for the indictment, was void. The trial court dismissed the indictment after a hearing. The State appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment. We determine that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment because the default judgment was not void, but merely voidable. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, reinstate the indictment and remand the case for trial

The petitioner, Donald Branch, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated vehicular homicide convictions, arguing that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to cite reported criminal law cases when arguing for a jury instruction on proximate causation and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to supplement his appellate brief with State v. Farner, 66 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. 2001), and for failing to raise as an issue on direct appeal the trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself. While the post-conviction appeal was pending, the petitioner sought and received permission to raise as an additional issue the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s Blakely v. Washington opinion on the sentencing in his case. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating either a deficiency in counsel’s representation or resulting prejudice to his case. We further conclude that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.