APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Mario Merritt, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of especially aggravated robbery. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant now brings this appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jimmy Ray Dockery, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's decision to deny probation on his two-year sentence for attempt to fraudulently obtain a controlled substance. Based on our review of the record, we affirm the judgment.

Following his guilty plea to two counts of theft, the defendant, Jody Lee Turner, was sentenced in the Cumberland County Criminal Court to an effective four-year term to be served on probation, supervised by a community corrections program agency. A few weeks later, the court revoked the community placement and ordered the defendant to serve his four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. From that order, the defendant appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgments below.

The defendant, Jason D. Love, appeals the trial court's denial of alternative sentences. The defendant pled guilty to three counts of delivery of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony. Following a hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. After careful review, we affirm the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing.

The state appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's order granting Donald W. Streck's motion to receive jail credits toward his Tennessee sentence for time that he spent in federal custody serving federal sentences. Because the lower court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion, we reverse.

The defendant, Allen Ken Kinney, III, entered pleas of guilt to two counts of sale of a controlled substance, .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, a Schedule II drug. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(A)(3). The trial court imposed concurrent, Range I, eight-year sentences on each of the two Class B felonies, requiring twelve months in jail, less thirty-nine days of pretrial jail credit, with the balance to be served on probation.¹ The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with a sentence imposed in Kentucky. In this appeal, the defendant complains that the term of incarceration was excessive. The judgments are affirmed.

The petitioner, Maria Maclin, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and a ten thousand dollar fine was imposed. Following an unsuccessful appeal of her conviction, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The petitioner now brings this appeal challenging the post-conviction court’s denial of her petition. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The defendant, Monty Earl Pickelsimer, entered negotiated pleas of guilt to theft of property having a value of more than $10,000.00 or more but less than $60,000.00 and theft of property having a value of more than $1000.00 more but less than $10,000.00. The plea agreement included concurrent Range I sentences of three years on each offense and certified a question of law for appeal as to whether the defendant was denied a speedy trial under the state and federal constitutions. Because the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial, the judgment is reversed, the conviction is set aside, and the cause is dismissed.

The defendant, Roger Dale Cates, was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with one hundred twenty days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on probation. The defendant's driver's license was revoked for a period of three years. Because the trial court properly instructed the jury as to whether the defendant was in control of the vehicle, the judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contends that: (1) the State cannot maintain convictions on both murder and robbery when the murder was committed in the act of robbery; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because he did not plead to the charge of attempted second degree murder; and (3) the court erred in dismissing his petition without first appointing him counsel. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Earice Roberts, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of heroin with the intent to sell, a Class B felony; possession of heroin with the intent to deliver, a Class B felony; and two counts of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. After merging the possession of heroin with intent to sell conviction with the possession of heroin with the intent to deliver conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years for possession of heroin with the intent to deliver; eleven months, twenty-nine days for possession of marijuana; and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each assault. The trial court ordered that the marijuana sentence be served concurrently to the heroin sentence, but that the sentences for assault be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the twelve-year sentence for possession of heroin, for a total effective sentence of thirteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raised on appeal was whether the trial court erred in admitting the heroin into evidence because of the State’s alleged failure to establish a proper chain of custody. However, while the case was still pending, the defendant filed a motion requesting that we consider an additional issue on appeal; namely, the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s recently released Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___,124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), opinion on the enhanced heroin sentence imposed as well as on the consecutive sentencing ordered in the case. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the heroin into evidence; that three of the four enhancement factors were inappropriately applied under Blakely, but that the remaining applicable enhancement factor, to which the trial court assigned heavy weight, justifies an enhanced sentence of ten years, six months; and that Blakely does not affect the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. Accordingly, we modify the defendant’s sentence for possession of heroin with the intent to deliver from twelve years to ten years, six months, but in all other respects affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Lamar Ross, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury on two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, under alternate theories, for one offense. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of both counts, which were merged into a single judgment of conviction, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. In a timely appeal to this court, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing imposed. Based on our review, we modify the conviction in Count 2 to rape, a Class B felony, in accordance with the offense with which the defendant was charged. Further, we conclude that two of the four enhancement factors are inapplicable, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s subsequent opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  Accordingly, we modify the aggravated rape conviction in Count 2 to rape, which merges into the conviction for aggravated rape in Count 1, and reduce the defendant’s sentence to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction.

I write separately because, in my view, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), precludes the application of enhancement factor (5). While I agree with the majority that the jury's verdict in count two necessarily includes a finding that the victim is mentally defective, the verdict does not include a finding that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his mental disability, which is required by the statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(5) (2003). Our supreme court has held that factor (5) may be used only "if the circumstances show that the victim, because of his age or physical ormental condition, was in fact 'particularly vulnerable,' i.e., incapable of resisting, summoning help, or testifying against the perpetrator." State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tenn. 1993). In my view, the verdict of the jury does not necessarily reflect that fact. In consequence, factor (5) would not be applicable under the rule established in Blakely. Because only one enhancement factor remains, I would have modified the sentence to twenty-one years, one year above the presumptive sentence.

The defendant, Michael K. Massengill, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to place him back on intensive probation or in the community corrections program after he violated his probation. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court.

The petitioner, James D. L. Perry, appeals pro se from the Johnson County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The petitioner attacks his two convictions for possession with intent to sell one-half or more grams of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school for which he received concurrent twenty-year terms. He contends that the first cocaine conviction is void because he was entrapped, that the second cocaine conviction is void because he was convicted of a crime for which he was not indicted, and that both convictions are void because he was convicted under a statute which he claims was inapplicable. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

The Defendant, Arthur Southern, pled guilty to two counts of sale of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years and three months on each count and ordered that the sentences run consecutively, for an effective sentence of eighty years and six months. The Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Defendant then filed a motion for a new sentencing hearing or a sentence reduction, which the trial court denied. On appeal the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and (2) ordered that his sentences run consecutively. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the court.

Following a remand for a new trial on the charge of first-degree premeditated murder, see State v. Howard, 30 S.W.3d 271 (Tenn. 2000), the defendant, FranklinHoward, was again convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and was also convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life in prison.  Now on appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the admission of a codefendant’s statement, the failure of the trial court to bar the second trial based upon principles of double jeopardy, the trial court’s jury instructions, the failure to transfer the case to another trial judge for retrial, and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. We reverse the felony-murder convictions and dismiss those charges but otherwise affirm the defendant’s first-degree murder conviction and sentence.

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal, or in the alternative, affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant filed a motion for correction or reduction of sentence that the trial court denied without benefit of a hearing. After reviewing the record in this case, we find the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Michael Trew, was found guilty by jury verdict of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and violating the implied consent law. The Defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with seven days to be served in the county jail; fined $400; and had his driver's license suspended for one year. The Defendant now appeals, claiming that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his DUI conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Michael A. Drake, was indicted on two counts of vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. A jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication. In the second phase of the trial, the jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide based on one prior DUI conviction and a blood alcohol level of .20 or more at the time of the present offense. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the indictment by arguing that it only gave notice that the State sought to convict him of aggravated vehicular homicide based on two prior DUI offenses. We determine that the indictment is misleading and deprives the appellant of adequate notice of the charges against him in violation of the 6th amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. The indictment indicated that the State sought the aggravated vehicular homicide convictions solely on the basis of the appellant's two prior DUI convictions pursuant to Tennessee Code annotated section 39-13-218(1)(a), rather than one prior DUI and a blood alcohol of .20 or more at the time of the offense, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-218(3). Thus, we are forced to dismiss the aggravated vehicular homicide conviction, modify the conviction to vehicular homicide under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-213 and remand the case for resentencing.

The Defendant, Calvin Lee Sneed, was convicted upon a jury verdict of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Calvin Lee Sneed, No. 03C01-9611-CR-00444, 1998 WL 309137 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, June 12, 1998). The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a hearing, the trial court denied relief. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing the appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon a review of the record in this case we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Gary Lee Johnson, was convicted of aggravated assault, assault,¹ and resisting arrest. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years in the Department of Correction for the aggravated assault and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the assault and resisting arrest convictions. All sentences were to be served concurrently. He appeals only the aggravated assault conviction, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. After review, we affirm the convictions but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 1 and 2.

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing the appellant's "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment." In that document the petitioner apparently desired to set aside his guilty plea because it failed to comply with certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. Upon a review of the record in this case we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment" and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Samuel L. Giddens, was convicted of facilitation of possession of heroin with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following four issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing law enforcement officers to testify regarding factual indications that a person possesses drugs with the intent to sell, rather than for personal use; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony regarding prior drug transactions conducted by the Defendant; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his two convictions; and (4) whether he was entitled to a mistrial due to a statement made by the prosecutor during closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.