APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable ground for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Raymond Mitchell, was convicted in 1996 of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. He pled nolo contendere to a third rape charge, which was reduced to sexual battery. He received a total effective sentence of fifteen years as a Range I, standard offender, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequently, he filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, alleging he was entitled to earn sentence reduction credits and challenging his classification as a "multiple rapist." The trial court dismissed the petition and he appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the Department of Correction ("DOC") did not err by classifying the petitioner as a multiple rapist and determining he was not eligible for sentence reduction credits. The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, improper jury instructions, double jeopardy violations, and again challenging the sentence enforcement by the DOC. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and this appeal followed. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court denying the petition but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 2 and 3 to reflect that the petitioner is a "multiple rapist," and his sentences are to be served as such.

The defendant pled guilty in 2000 to vehicular homicide and the judgment ordered, in addition to setting the sentence at five years and the restitution amount, that he forfeit his driver's license for five years. Following his release from incarceration, he petitioned the trial court to reduce the period of suspension of his license to three years. The trial court granted this petition, and the State appealed, arguing that the court was without authority to alter the license revocation period. Upon our review, we find that the judgment, which was the basis for the defendant's request that the trial court reduce the suspension period to three years and the State's appeal of the court order doing so, had been superseded by an amended judgment entered several days after the first which corrected the listing of the statute for the defendant's conviction offense but omitted setting a period of suspension of his driver's license. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court reducing the suspension period to three years and remand for entry of a second corrected judgment, this one to set a period for the license revocation.

Seanise Shaw, the petitioner, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for
post-conviction relief. The lower court found her allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel
unsupported by the evidence and denied relief. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm.

The defendant, Christopher Kirkendall, indicted for one count of attempted first degree murder and two counts of aggravated robbery, was convicted of facilitation of attempted second degree murder and two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery, all Class C felonies. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years for facilitation of attempted second degree murder and, after merging the robbery convictions, imposed a five-year sentence for one count of facilitation of aggravated robbery.  The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to a previously imposed twelve-year sentence for an unrelated offense. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the identity evidence and argues that the sentences should be concurrently served. Since the filing of the briefs, the defendant has also asked to consider the impact of the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____ , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), as to the lengths of the sentences. The judgments are affirmed as modified.

I agree that under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. _____, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), enhancement factors (3), (10), and (21) of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114 cannot be applied in sentencing Defendant. However, instead of modifying the sentence, I would remand for a new sentencing hearing. In light of Blakely, I feel that the trial court should be given the opportunity to impose the appropriate punishment upon the only valid enhancement factor in this case: proof of a prior conviction(s) of defendant as an adult.

On November 13, 2002, the defendant, Leonard H. Cutshall, was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury for (1) transportation of untaxed beer in excess of 100 cases and (2) depriving the State of lawful revenue, both Class E felonies. The defendant pled guilty to these charges at a hearing held on April 21, 2003. As part of the plea agreement, the defendant was to be sentenced to two years as a Range II offender for each count and pay a fine of $2,000 for each count. In addition, the defendant was ordered to pay the State $511.27 in lost revenue. At a hearing held on September 15, 2003, the trial court denied the defendant alternative sentencing and probation. The defendant has appealed that decision to this Court. We have found no error on the part of the trial court. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Franklin Darnell Brown, Jr., was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of six years and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and that the sentence was excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

I agree with the majority opinion that application of enhancement factor (14) violates the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. _____, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). However, I would remand for a new sentencing hearing for the trial court to use the only applicable enhancement factor, the Defendant’s prior convictions. While the trial court did state that the prior convictions “should be considered very strongly as far as enhancement,” the trial court then immediately stated that Defendant had to be on probation at the time of the offense which is the subject of this appeal, and the trial court applied that enhancement factor also.

The Petitioner, Victor D. McMiller, Sr., 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. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant Terrell Deberry was indicted for possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine. The defendant Damien Nixon was also indicted for possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine and for driving on a revoked license. After granting a motion to suppress the cocaine found in the possession of defendant Deberry, the trial court permitted the state an application for a discretionary appeal under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Later, the state determined that because the substantive effect of the trial court’s ruling resulted in dismissal of the charges against each defendant, the more appropriate appellate remedy was under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. This court granted the motion to accept the appeal under Rule 3 and waived the timely filing of notice of appeal by the state. The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to suppress. Because the evidence was poperly suppressed, the judgment is affirmed

The case before us concerns the untimely death of Montrell Mason and the aggravated robbery of Clinton Anderson and Christopher Fears. The defendant stands convicted of Mason's felony murder in the perpetration of robbery, two counts of aggravated robbery, and weapon possession. We affirm the convictions and sentences.

The Appellant, Marcus Vashawn Nixon, appeals his jury conviction for rape of a child in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. As grounds, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress pre-trial photo identification evidence based upon a Rule 16 discovery violation.  After review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the decision of the trial court.

The appellant, Lilly Bell Gifford, pled guilty in the Sumner County Criminal Court to the sale of cocaine, and the trial court sentenced her to six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. However, the appellant was permitted to serve the bulk of her sentence on probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered her to serve the balance of her sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the revocation of her probationary sentence. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Robert McChristian, appeals from a summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm.

The petitioner, Demetrius Lancaster, appeals as of right from the order of the Giles County Circuit Court holding that his petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for being filed outside the one-year statute of limitations for filing post-conviction relief. We affirm the trial court.

The Defendant, Christopher Hatcher, was tried and convicted for first degree felony murder, second degree murder, attempted first degree murder and reckless endangerment for shooting three victims.   The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction with the felony murder conviction and then sentenced the Defendant to life with the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction, twenty years for the attempted murder conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the reckless endangerment conviction. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred by not granting his motion for new trial because the State failed to give the Defendant exculpatory evidence; (2) the trial court improperly allowed the State to refer to an alleged robbery previously committed by the Defendant; (3) the trial court erred when it allowed a witness to testify about the alleged robbery; (4) the trial court improperly allowed expert fingerprint testimony; (5) the trial court erred when it did not grant a mistrial based upon the State’s biblical references; (6) the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss a sleeping juror; (7) the trial court erred when it allowed hearsay testimony of a witness; and (8) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we conclude that there is no reversible error in the judgments of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm its judgments.

I concur in the majority opinion, but I question its reliance upon the fact that our supreme court denied permission to appeal in Bland v. Dukes to validate Bland’s holding. Our supreme court has advised us not to attach significance to such a denial. See Meadows v. State, 849 S.W.2d 748, 752 (Tenn. 1993).

The defendants, Cornelius D. Hicks and Troy Lee Springfield, and two codefendants, Bryan T. Oldham and Kenyale M. Pirtle, were charged with aggravated assault, a Class C felony, for firing a gun at the victim, Keiston Campbell, as he drove his car down a Henning street. Pirtle subsequently pled guilty to aggravated assault, and a fifth individual involved in the incident had his case handled in juvenile court. The three remaining defendants, Springfield, Hicks, and Oldham, were tried jointly before a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury, which acquitted Oldham but convicted both Hicks and Springfield of the lesser-included offense of facilitation of aggravated assault, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced Hicks as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction, with the sentence suspended and the defendant placed on supervised probation following service of 250 days, to be served consecutively to a sentence for an offense for which he was on probation at the time of the instant offense. Springfield was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction, with the sentence ordered to be served consecutively to his sentence for violation of parole. The sole issue Hicks raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Springfield challenges the trial court’s denial of his motions to sever his trial and for judgment of acquittal. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Steven Douglas Tutt, appeals the Marshall County Circuit Court's order that retired his motion for expungement. We dismiss the appeal.

The appellant, Syreeta Patterson, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to voluntary manslaughter. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to six years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the appellant’s request for alternative sentencing, and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Jeremy Loader, pled guilty on July 12, 2002, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to two counts of theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony, and two counts of arson, a Class E felony in Case No. 02-002. In Case No. 01-146, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of burglary other than a habitation, a Class D felony. The terms of Defendant's plea agreement set the length and manner of service of Defendant's sentence as follows. In Case No. 02-002, Defendant would serve four years on each of the theft of property convictions, all suspended but nine months, and two years for each of the arson convictions, all suspended but 144 days, with Defendant placed on probation for the remainder of his sentences on each count. For Case No. 01-146, Defendant would serve four years for each arson conviction, all suspended but nine months, with Defendant placed on probation for the remainder of his sentences. The sentences in Case No. 02-002 and Case No. 01-146 would be served concurrently for an effective sentence of four years. In exchange, the State withdrew other charges against Defendant. Defendant spent nine months in jail before entering his guilty pleas because he was unable to make bond. The trial court granted Defendant's request for judicial diversion, and Defendant was placed on judicial diversion for a period of six years. Defendant's judicial diversion in both cases was revoked on April 21, 2003, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with pretrial jail credit of nine months, in accordance with the terms of his plea agreement. Defendant does not appeal the revocation of his judicial diversion but argues that the trial court erred in ordering a sentence of confinement. Defendant contends that the terms of his plea agreement called for a sentence of split confinement, with the period of confinement already served, in the event his judicial diversion was subsequently revoked. Alternatively, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not conducting a sentencing hearing prior to imposing Defendant's sentence. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Larry Hunt, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated kidnapping. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-five years incarceration for the aggravated rape conviction, twelve years incarceration for the aggravated robbery conviction, and twelve years incarceration for the aggravated kidnapping conviction. The trial court ordered the sentence for aggravated rape be served consecutively to the remaining sentences, for an effective thirty-seven year sentence. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of aggravated rape and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. 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 rape to twenty-two years and the sentences for aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping to ten years, for an effective sentence of thirty-two years incarceration. We also vacate the judgment of conviction for count two of indictment number 00-12640, which judgment was entered in error. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Keith Dale Thomas, was convicted by a jury in the Madison County Circuit Court of first degree murder and possession of a deadly weapon with intent to employ it in the commission of an offense. He received a total effective sentence of life plus two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel and his appellate counsel were ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Alfonso Martinez, was found guilty by a jury in the Henderson County Circuit Court of felony possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant’s sole issue is the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-17-424 and 39-17-425 (2003). Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appellant has waived his issue. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.