APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner has appealed the dismissal of her petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendants, who are brother and sister, were each convicted by a Cocke County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced by the trial court to serve 11 months, 29 days on supervised probation. Both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented from which a rational trier of fact could reasonably find both defendants guilty of assault. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of the first degree premeditated murder of Junecus Bolden. The appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises issues regarding the admission of certain testimony and the propriety of the State’s rebuttal closing argument. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Early H. Miles, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post- conviction relief or in the alternative for writ of habeas corpus. 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 Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations for post-conviction purposes. The petition was not filed in the proper court for habeas corpus purposes, and the petitioner did not give any reason in the petition for not applying to the nearest court as required by law. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Raymond Sunil Tate, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the action of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. The petition does not establish either an expired sentence or a void judgment. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Gibson County jury convicted Patricia White of theft of property valued over $10,000, a Class C felony; the trial court sentenced her to a term of four years, suspended, and fifteen years’ probation. The same jury also convicted Patricia White’s husband, Craig White, of facilitation of theft of property valued over $10,000; the trial court sentenced him to a term of two years suspended, and two years’ probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court held the couple jointly liable for $124,000 in restitution. On appeal the defendants contend that the trial evidence is insufficient to support their convictions. They also contest the amount of restitution they have been ordered to pay. After an exhaustive review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Patricia White’s conviction, but we are unable to reach the same conclusion for Craig White’s facilitation conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Patricia White’s conviction; the conviction of Craig White is reversed, and the charge is dismissed. Finding that the trial court made inadequate findings in assessing restitution, we further remand that issue for determination based on the required statutory findings. Finally, we take notice that based on three statutory enhancement factors (none of which involved prior criminal history), the trial court set the length of Patricia White’s sentence at one year above the presumptive minimum sentence of three years; pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify her sentence to three years but leave undisturbed the length and terms of her probation.

The majority concludes that modification of the defendant, Patricia White’s, sentence is
required in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). For the following reasons, I must respectfully dissent.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Ronnie W. Salmon, was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended but sixty days. Defendant does not appeal his sentence. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument were improper, and that the trial court erred in not granting Defendant a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Anthony K. Goods, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The petitioner, Alfonzo Williams, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the post-conviction court erroneously found that his petition was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Petitioner, Leslie Lamont Coleman, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction 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 Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Joe Bobby Yarbro, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for postc-onviction 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. Because the petition for post-conviction relief is time-barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The Petitioner, Donzel A. Watson, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction 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 Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Johnny Proffitt, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction 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 Petitioner cannot collaterally attack his probation revocation order. Moreover, the petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, James Marvin Martin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his claim was beyond the statute of limitations. After careful review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner appeals theMadison County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Because the post-conviction court had no jurisdiction to rescind its earlier grant of post-conviction relief, we reverse.

The defendant, Christopher David Hodge, appeals his conviction of second degree murder. The defendant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in disallowing discovery of certain information relevant to preparation of a defense. From our review, we conclude there is no reversible error and affirm the conviction.

The Defendant, Lalon R. Davenport, pled guilty to one count of violating the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the three-year time period articulated in the Habitual Offender Act bars prosecution for violating the Act after the time period has expired. We conclude that such prosecution is not barred by the Act, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

The Petitioner, David E. Garrison, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction 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 Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s ten-year sentence is required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent.

The defendant, Jonathan B. Cutshaw, pleaded guilty in the Cocke County Criminal Court to one count of burglary, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-402, and to one count of vandalism, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-408. Pursuant to his plea agreement with the state, he accepted joint and several liability for restitution, along with others involved in the vandalism, and he received an effective sentence of three years, with the manner of service of the sentences to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve his sentences in confinement and to pay restitution. It is from this order that the defendant appeals. We modify the judgment of the trial court as to manner of service of the sentences and remand for further findings regarding the appropriate amount of restitution.