APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Aggrieved of the order to serve 90 days of his two-year sexual battery sentence in confinement, the defendant, Michael K. Miller, appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Harry M. Nimmons, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to three counts of possessing with the intent to sell less than one-half gram of cocaine and resulting effective sixteen-year sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because he would have gone to trial if his attorneys had explained evidentiary issues to him. We affirm the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the appellant, Bernard E. Roller, Jr., was convicted of driving under the influence. The trial court sentenced the appellant to an eleven month, twenty-nine-day sentence and suspended all of the sentence except for fifteen days, which the appellant was ordered to serve in the workhouse. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging: (1) his sentence as excessive; (2) the trial court's decision to exclude evidence about the tachograph in the police officer's car; (3) comments made by the prosecutor during rebuttal argument; (4) the trial court's failure to take corrective action following the prosecutor's prejudicial comments; and (5) the trial court's failure to question the appellant in accordance with Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999). Although we conclude that issues (1), (2), (3), and (4) are without merit, the record is devoid of evidence to allow this Court to determine whether the appellant personally and knowingly waived his right to testify. Therefore, we remand the case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the appellant's right to testify was violated, and if so, whether the violation of the appellant's right to testify was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The petitioner's judgment forms entered May 29, 1996, reflect that he pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, committed on November 18, 1994, and possession of cocaine greater than one-half gram with intent to sell, a Class B felony, committed on October 3, 1994. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years on the murder conviction and twelve years on the cocaine conviction. The judgments ordered the sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to sentences for other convictions listed on the judgment forms. The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief claiming that his sentences are void because they are in direct contravention of statutory law requiring them to be served consecutively rather than concurrently. The trial court granted habeas corpus relief, and the State appealed. We hold that the testimony presented by this petitioner was outside the record of the underlying convictions and proceedings and therefore should not have been considered by the trial court. We reverse and remand this case for a determination as to whether the record of the underlying convictions and proceedings constitutes satisfactory proof that the petitioner was on bail for the Class B cocaine offense when the second degree murder was committed.

The Appellant, Michael Douglas, appeals a 1 s of right from the judgment of the Shelby County
Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Douglas was convicted in 2000 of
attempted second degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, Douglas contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s (1) failure to seek suppression of a photo array because the photograph used was obtained following an unlawful arrest and (2) failure to adequately cross-examine a witness as to whether an agreement existed between the witness and the State. After review of the issues presented, the judgment is affirmed.

The Appellant, David Scott Akers, was indicted for the crimes of robbery and attempted robbery and, following a jury trial, was convicted of theft under $500 and attempted robbery. The trial court consolidated the sentencing hearing for these convictions with Akers’ two pending probation revocation hearings. Following this hearing, Akers received an effective ten-year sentence for his two jury convictions and two one-year sentences from the revocation of his sentences for violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) Act. On appeal, Akers raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting Akers’ three prior MVHO convictions for impeachment purposes; (2) whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and at sentencing; and (3) whether the trial court erred in conducting the revocation hearing without proper notice. Finding no error, the judgments of the Dyer County Circuit Court are affirmed.

The defendant, Dennis Christopher Lowery, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's revoking his probation that he had received for his convictions upon guilty pleas to theft and misdemeanor evading arrest. The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Floyd W. Jenkins, appeals the Monroe County Criminal Court's denial of his Motion for Probation. The state contends that the trial court properly denied the motion because the petitioner is serving his sentences in the Department of Correction and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over him. We agree with the state and, pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R., affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Mike Settle, appeals the trial court's denial 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. After review, we conclude that thePetitioner has failed to establish a ground for which post-conviction relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Eric D. Jones, 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. The Petitioner fails to assert a ground entitling him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Marcus Brooks, appeals the trial court's denial 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. A review of the record supports the State’s position. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted on June 18, 1997 for especially aggravated burglary, aggravated rape, robbery, aggravated burglary and attempted rape. After a direct appeal to this Court, his robbery conviction was reversed. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief based upon allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his remaining convictions. The trial court denied this petition. The petitioner now appeals the trial court's decision. We affirm the trial court.

The petitioner, Dan Bill Johnson, sought habeas corpus relief, asserting that his five-year robbery sentence had expired. Although not granting the relief sought by the petitioner, the trial court determined that his life sentence had expired and identified the date at which he began serving his robbery sentence, with the Department of Correction then to determine his release date. Both the petitioner and the State appealed. Following our review, we reverse the order of the trial court and dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is to be returned to custody.

The petitioner, Terrance Lowdermilk, 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, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. The petition is barred by the statute of limitations and does not establish that the petitioner is alternatively entitled to relief by a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief claiming that the judgments entered are void. He contends that he was on parole when the current offenses were committed; therefore, the concurrent sentences that he received are illegal. We conclude that in order to receive relief, the fact that the petitioner was on parole when he pled guilty must be proved by satisfactory proof contained in the record or proceedings underlying the convictions sought to be set aside. We reverse the trial court’s summary dismissal and remand for appointment of counsel and a hearing to determine whether the record of the underlying convictions or proceedings contained satisfactory proof that the petitioner was on parole at the time he committed second degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon.

The Defendant, Andre Baldwin, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. The Defendant was subsequently sentenced to serve a life sentence of imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding the evidence legally sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Randall Mills, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

The Defendant, Mable Longmire, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. Her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Mabel1 J. Longmire, No. W1999-00216- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 128561 (Tenn. Crim. App., Feb. 15, 2001, Jackson). The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Bernard Keys, of aggravated burglary and evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to fifteen years in prison for the aggravated burglary conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the evading arrest conviction, and ordered that the sentences run consecutively. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his attorney was ineffective for failing to investigate his case and prepare properly for trial. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. Finding no error, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Adam Betts, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. In this direct appeal, he argues that: 1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; 2) the trial court erred by admitting a photograph of the victim; and 3) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s request for special jury instructions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action which originated as a post-conviction proceeding seeking the grant of both a delayed appeal and a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Ben Thomas Dowlen appeals. We affirm the lower court's ruling on the sentencing issue raised in the delayed appeal, and we likewise affirm the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief.

Following a bench trial, the defendant, Harold David Haney, Sr., was convicted of violation of a motor vehicle habitual offender ("MVHO") order and DUI, second offense. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years for the MVHO violation and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the DUI conviction, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. In addition, he was fined a total of $1100 and his driver's license was revoked for two years. On appeal, he argues that the State failed to establish venue. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Randall Watson, pled guilty to second degree murder. He subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief. After considering the Defendant’s petition as presented and also as a petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court dismissed the Defendant’s pleading. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Julius E. Smith, entered pleas of guilty to two counts of driving under the influence, third offense, and four counts of vehicular assault. As to the first driving under the influence offense, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be suspended to probation after the service of 120 days of confinement. The second was merged into the convictions for vehicular assault. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of three years for each vehicular assault conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence for driving under the influence, third offense. The effective sentence is, therefore, twelve years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the effective sentence for the vehicular assault convictions is excessive. It is our judgment that the misapplication of an enhancement factor to three of the four vehicular assault convictions warrants a reduction to two years for each of those crimes. Otherwise, the judgments of the trial court, including the imposition of consecutive terms, are affirmed.

The defendant, Terry Lynn Byington, was convicted of DUI, fourth offense, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to three years in the Department of Correction, with 150 days to be served day-for-day. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) his sentence is excessive; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior conviction which was more than ten years old; and (4) the trial judge erred in not recusing herself. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.