APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, James Bell, Jr., entered pleas of guilty to a number of offenses in the Shelby County Criminal Court in 1997 and 2000, and subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lake County Circuit Court, asserting that his convictions were void and his sentences illegal. The court denied the petition without a hearing, and this appeal followed. We affirm the denial of the petition, but remand to the Shelby County Criminal Court for a hearing to identify what disposition was intended as to each of the indictments and entry of corrected judgments to reflect those determinations

Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Sherry Lynn Johnson, was convicted of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court placed the Defendant on judicial diversion. In this appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court misinterpreted the assault statute and that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. Because the Defendant was placed on judicial diversion, no judgment of conviction has been entered, and the Defendant has no appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner, Roger K. Jones, appeals the order dismissing his petition 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 petition fails to establish either a void judgment or an expired sentence. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Derrick Bryant, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Derrick Bryant, No. E2000-01835-CCA-MR3-CD, 2001 WL 1187916 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Oct. 9, 2001). In this post-conviction proceeding, the Defendant alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the trial court denied relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Tony Ivens, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual battery. Defendant was fined $3,000 and sentenced to serve two years with all but 90 days to be suspended and served on probation. Defendant filed a motion for new trial or mistrial, alleging that one of the jurors failed to disclose during voir dire that she was related to a staff member of the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant appeals. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant appeals from an order of the trial court which found him to be in violation of the terms of his community corrections sentence. The trial court ordered that the remainder of the Defendant's sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that the Defendant serve his sentence in confinement rather than allowing him to continue in the community corrections program. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Joseph Carl Ganus, appeals the sentencing decision of the Hardin County Circuit Court. Ganus pled guilty to Violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) statute and DUI, third offense. Following a sentencing hearing, Ganus was sentenced to four years confinement in the Department of Correction for violation of the MVHO statute and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for DUI, third offense.1 These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On appeal, Ganus argues that the trial court erred: (1) by not granting him a non-incarcerative sentence and (2) by improperly weighing enhancing factors in establishing the length of his sentence. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Richard Hickey, appeals the Morgan County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Calvin Grissette, of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on self-defense. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Brandon Abernathy, pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery. 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 judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, William Edward Bellamy, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's action pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The motion is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Kenneth Lamar Tucker, plead guilty to one count of rape of a child in exchange for a fifteen-year sentence at 100%. In this post-conviction appeal, the petitioner argues that: (1) he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea of guilt; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) he was denied the right to a trial by jury; (4) the state withheld exculpatory evidence; (5) the newly discovered exculpatory evidence entitles him to relief; and (6) the post-conviction court erred in refusing to admit trial counsel’s case file into evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

The petitioner was convicted for sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to 32 _ years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The petitioner appealed his conviction to this Court. We affirmed his conviction. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Post-conviction Relief. The post-conviction court granted his petition. The State now appeals the post-conviction court's decision, arguing two issues: (1) Whether failure of trial defense counsel to follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 609 amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and (2) whether failure of trial defense counsel to request the jury charge of facilitation amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, where that charge would now be automatically given. We reverse and remand the decision of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Robert Lee Mallard, appeals the revocation of his probation relating to his convictions for attempting to tamper with evidence and resisting arrest. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in revoking his probation; (2) the drug tests administered by the probation officers constituted improper body cavity searches; and (3) the drug tests violated his right to privacy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In my view, we must recognize the possibility that Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), hampers a trial judge’s authority to make the fact findings necessary to overcome the statutory presumption of favorable candidacy for alternative sentencing. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102(6) (2003) (establishing presumption of favorable candidacy for alternative sentencing for certain mitigated or standard offenders convicted of felonies in Classes C through E), -103(1) (2003) (establishing factual bases which may support a sentence of confinement).

The defendant entered guilty pleas to two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication and was sentenced to consecutive twelve-year terms of imprisonment. The defendant appealed the imposition of maximum sentences and the order to serve the terms consecutively. After this, our second review, we again remand for a new sentencing hearing in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and the trial court's failure to find specific findings justifying the necessity for consecutive sentencing.

The petitioner, Anthony C. Long, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We reverse the dismissal and order habeas corpus relief.

The petitioner, Rodney McKinney, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his claim for writ of habeas corpus. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Matthew Kirk McWhorter, of three counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence for each conviction, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) insufficient evidence exists in the record to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by not requiring the State to elect the offenses it wished to submit to the jury; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a law enforcement officer's testimony about the Defendant's uncharged conduct; (4) the trial court erred by permitting a law enforcement agent to testify about a recorded recollection; (5) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to prohibit testimony of the victim; (6) reversible error occurred when the State failed to disclose, preserve and turn over a law enforcement official's notes made during the Defendant's initial interrogation; (7) the trial court erred by allowing the State to submit an insufficient Bill of Particulars and to deviate from its Bill of Particulars; (8) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his written and oral statements made to law enforcement officials in Florida; (9) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on child abuse as a lesser-included offense; (10) the State's closing arguments were so improper that they infected the trial with unfairness and denied the Defendant due process; (11) the trial court erred by interrupting the natural flow of jury deliberations to give supplemental instructions; and (12) the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant to serve his sentences consecutively. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to require the State to elect which incident of sexual touching the State intended for the jury to consider for Count 1, aggravated sexual battery. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and the sentence in Count 1. We affirm the remaining convictions and sentences.

The Appellant, Jeffery Brian Parks, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Lincoln County Circuit Court. In 2003, Parks pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, two counts of incest, and two counts of statutory rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Parks, as a Range I standard offender, to six years for each count of sexual battery by an authority figure and incest, both class C felonies, and to two years for each count of statutory rape, a class E felony. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, Parks argues that the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences with respect to each sentence and by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. The State, on appeal, asserts that consecutive sentencing should be imposed by this court following de novo review. Because the trial court failed to impose a sentence in accordance with our statutory sentencing scheme, we remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing to determine the length of the Appellant’s sentences, the appropriateness of consecutive sentencing, and the Appellant’s suitability for an alternative sentence.

I believe the sentencing in the instant case is controlled by State v. Marshall, 888 S.W.2d 786 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), and Rule 4(H)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court require it be followed. To the extent that the majority opinion holds this trial judge fashioned an improper sentence, I disagree. The two holdings in Marshall which apply to the instant cases are as follows:

Defendant, Janice Michele Walker, was charged in a four-count presentment with theft over $10,000, forgery over $10,000, computer fraud, and money laundering. Defendant pled guilty as a Range I standard offender to theft and forgery, both Class C felonies, and the other charges were dismissed. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, Defendant was sentenced to four years for each offense, to be served consecutively, and she was ordered to pay restitution. The trial court determined the manner of service of Defendant's sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve her effective eight-year sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of full probation. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Marion County jury convicted the defendant, Marvin Glenn White, of two counts of premeditated first degree murder for which he received concurrent life sentences. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in admitting statements which constituted double hearsay. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Robert “Bobby” Powell, pled guilty to statutory rape and sexual battery, Class E felonies, in exchange for an effective two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Finding that a sentence less serious than confinement would depreciate the seriousness of the offenses, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for probation or other alternative sentencing and ordered that he serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion to reconsider, and the defendant appealed to this court. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Bruce Franks, Jr., pleaded guilty to arson, a Class C felony, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-301(a)(1) (2003), and agreed to a three-year, Range I sentence. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing to determine themanner of service of the sentence and ordered split confinement.  The defendant appeals the confinement component of his sentence. We affirm.