APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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 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 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.

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.

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.

The defendant, Fernando Deandra Vaughn, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court erred by not waiting for the disposition of the drug charges against him before revoking his probation on the basis of those charges. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a Warren County jury of facilitation of first degree felony murder, facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, and criminally negligent homicide, which the trial court merged into the facilitation of felony murder conviction. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years on the facilitation of felony murder conviction and twelve years on the facilitation of especially aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain her convictions and whether the court erred by not instructing the jury as to accessory after the fact and in imposing consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect the correct offense date.

The petitioner appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her first degree murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that she received the effective assistance of trial counsel. She also contends she was denied the effective assistance of post-conviction counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the post-conviction petition.

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.

The Defendant, Kevin M. Radley, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition seeking post- conviction relief. The trial court determined that the petition was time-barred and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The appellant, James Kenneth Carroll, was convicted in the Roane County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI), child endangerment, and a violation of the implied consent law. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days in the Roane County Jail for the DUI and child endangerment convictions. For his violation of the implied consent law, the appellant's license was suspended for one year. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's actions as thirteenth juror. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Michael Blackburn, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to life plus twenty 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 post-conviction court's judgment.

The petitioner, Derrick McClure, appeals from the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that his petition was untimely filed without conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due process considerations tolled the statute of limitations. On appeal, we reverse the decision of the post-conviction court and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Earl David Crawford, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition seeking 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. The State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Cecil Moss, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from an allegedly void judgment, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and that it 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.

The Defendant, Robert Lewis Carpenter, Jr., filed for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court dismissed the Defendant’s petition as barred by the statute of limitations. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.