APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, after entry of a plea of guilty, appeals from the imposition of consecutive sentences, the denial of alternative sentencing, and the requiring of restitution to be paid to an entity not named as a victim in the indictment. Upon careful review, we affirm the respective sentences and the denial of alternative sentencing, but reverse the imposition of consecutive sentencing. The cause is remanded for additional hearing for determination of Automotive Financing Corporation’s victim status and if so established, the amount of restitution. We further direct that the recipient of the restitution for sales tax and clerk fees be changed from the State of Tennessee to the individuals named in the indictments who paid the sales tax and clerk fees.

I concur in the named victims’ receiving restitution. However, I seriously question whether a person or entity situated as AFC was in this case could be viewed as a “victim” for restitution purposes. The persons buying the vehicles are the named victims–and victims in fact–relative to the theft offenses charged in the indictment. The defendant took their money. AFC, with the titles, could have repossessed the vehicles. However, it voluntarily chose to relinquish the titles to the named victims, thereby essentially removing their loss from their purchases.

The Defendant appeals from the judgments of the trial court denying him habeas corpus relief. The trial court dismissed the petitions, finding that they failed to state cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Harry G. Sturgill, was convicted by a jury of eight counts of rape of a child and two counts of statutory rape. As a result, he received a twenty-five year sentence for each of his eight child rape convictions and a two-year sentence for each of his statutory rape convictions. Two of the child rape convictions were ordered to be served consecutively. All of the other sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, for an effective fifty-year sentence. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in regard to his child rape convictions and the length and consecutive nature of the sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Ydale Banks, of first-degree felony murder, first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracies to commit both modes of first-degree murder, especially aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and three counts of aggravated assault. The defendant now claims on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his pretrial statement; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to grant the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal; (3) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the convictions for first-degree murder; (4) the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial photographs into evidence in the sentencing phase of trial; (5) the trial court erred in admitting victim-impact evidence during the sentence phase; (6) the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(c) relative to the use of victim-impact evidence are unconstitutional; (7) the trial court erred in instructing the jury; and (8) the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the definition of "knowingly." We reverse the judgment of conviction of conspiracy to commit felony murder but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, David Lee Bellamy, plead guilty to violation of an habitual traffic offender order, two counts of reckless aggravated assault, four counts of reckless endangerment, driving under the influence, driving under the influence, fourth offense, improper passing, and driving left of center, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of twelve years. Unsatisfied with the denial of alternative sentencing, the appellant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, William Hackworth, pled guilty to four counts of incest and received an effective twelve-year sentence as a Range I offender. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, in part, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek DNA testing in order to establish the paternity of the child borne of the victim in this case. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and that Petitioner was not entitled to post-conviction DNA analysis. Petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Dewayne Cathey, petitioned the Hardeman County Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his sentence in his 1993 Shelby County, guilty-pleaded conviction of first degree murder. The lower court summarily dismissed the petition, and on appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without a hearing. Upon our review of the record, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s order. Furthermore, we order the lower court to grant habeas corpus relief.

Defendant, James Allen Michaels, pled guilty to two counts of robbery, both Class C felonies. Defendant was originally indicted on charges of aggravated robbery. For his convictions, Defendant was sentenced as a Range II offender to eight years and three years as a Range I standard offender, to be served consecutively. The length of the sentences imposed was agreed upon in the negotiated plea agreement. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of probation. After reviewing the record on appeal, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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.

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, 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 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 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, 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.

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, 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, 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, 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 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.