APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, William Berrios, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his post-conviction relief petition in relation to his guilty plea to felony murder for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) the state failed to satisfy a condition of the plea agreement; and (2) his plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, William Alexander Cocke Stuart, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to theft of property over $10,000 and received a five-year sentence to be served in split confinement. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. The post-conviction court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, dismissed the petition and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings.

A Franklin County jury convicted the Defendant, Tyrie Brown, of possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, assault and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to thirteen years for the possession conviction and ninety days on both the assault conviction and the resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial court dismissed count two of this indictment charging the violation of the implied consent law and barred the State from arguing in the defendant's trial for DUI that he knew he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. The State appeals. We conclude that the defendant was sufficiently advised of the possible suspension of his driver's license upon his refusal to submit to testing to satisfy the warning requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(a)(2). The defendant need not be advised of the correct and exact term of the suspension in order to satisfy the statutory warning requirements. The defendant was advised that he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the violation of implied consent law. Likewise, we reverse the trial court's limiting the State from arguing that the defendant knew he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. Accordingly, we remand for trial consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner pled guilty to one count of burglary and one count of theft of property between $1,000 and $10,000 on August 21, 2001. He was sentenced to twelve years for each offense to run concurrently to be served at sixty percent as a career offender. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on April 16, 2002. The trial court denied the petition on January 13, 2003.  The petitioner appeals this denial alleging that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Upon its own motion, the court hereby withdraws the opinion and vacates the judgment
previously filed on April 26, 2004, in this case. A new opinion and judgment will be filed.

The petitioner, Damien Lamar Owes, was found guilty by a Davidson County jury and stands convicted of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. He is serving a 30-year sentence. Aggrieved by his convictions, the petitioner pursued a pro se action for post-conviction relief predicated on the alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following the appointment of counsel and a hearing, the petition was denied. The petitioner appeals and urges that he is entitled to relief. We disagree and affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, David Clinton York, an inmate in the Clay County Jail, pled guilty to felony escape and was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in determining that he was a persistent offender, in denying alternative sentencing, and in applying the enhancement and mitigating factors. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Anthony Crowe, appeals as of right the McNairy County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to facilitation of first degree murder, for which he is serving a sentence of eighteen years in the Department of Correction. He also complains that the length of his sentence is excessive and should be modified. We conclude that the defendant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Additionally, we find no error in the sentence imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied. I believe that a sufficient factual basis for the defendant’s plea is lacking and that the plea was the result of a mistaken belief regarding criminal liability, such that manifest injustice permits the plea to be withdrawn.

A Sullivan County jury convicted the defendant, Terry Byington, of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, and driving on a revoked license. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve an effective four-year sentence in confinement as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his DUI conviction; (2) the arresting officer improperly presented expert testimony regarding field sobriety tests; (3) the trial court erred in ruling that the state could question the defendant regarding a prior perjury conviction more than ten years old; (4) the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse herself; and (5) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On March 11, 1998, the petitioner, John T. Heflin, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence. See, State v. Heflin, 15 S.W.3d 519 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief alleging that his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to object to the testimony of a state witness. The trial court concluded that the failure to object to this witness' testimony did not amount to the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities we conclude that the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore the judgment of the post-conviction court is AFFIRMED.

The defendant, Richard Lafayette Sumner, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Cocke County Circuit Court for two counts of first degree premeditated murder, one count of first degree felony murder, and one count of aggravated arson. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each murder and twenty-five years for the aggravated arson, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's rejection of his insanity defense. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant of first degree murder. We also hold, though, that the convictions for the premeditated and felony murders in counts one and three should be merged pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause. We affirm the convictions, but vacate the judgments as to counts one and three and remand the case for the trial court to enter a judgment reflecting a merger of those two counts.

The Appellant, Lloyd Earl Williams, appeals the summary dismissal of his application for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Williams argues that: (1) his six drug convictions are void because he was tried and sentenced in absentia and (2) his class B felony sentences are illegal because the indictments do not specify that the amount of cocaine sold or possessed was 0.5 grams or more. Finding these issues without merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, John A. Lee, was convicted after a bench trial of one count of child abuse of a child under six years old, a Class D felony. The Defendant was subsequently sentenced to serve two years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue raised in this direct appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Marco Polo Patten, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: 1) whether the trial court erred by allowing evidence of prior bad acts by the Defendant; 2) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict; 3) whether the prosecutor made improper statements during his opening and closing statements; 4) whether cumulative errors prevented a fair trial; 5) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Raymond Douglas Myers, Sr., was found guilty by a jury of three counts of first degree murder, two counts of felony murder, one count of aggravated arson, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. The trial court merged the convictions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit murder into the three first degree murder convictions. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole for each murder conviction, and a consecutive twenty-four year sentence for the aggravated arson conviction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that Tennessee's first degree murder sentencing statute is unconstitutional, and that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury regarding the State's burden of proof. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Claud E. Simonton, went to trial initially in November 2002, on charges of driving under the influence (DUI) third offense, and violation of the implied consent law. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. On April 2, 2003, the defendant was retried and convicted by the jury of third offense DUI. The jury assessed a $1,200 fine. The trial judge found that the defendant had violated the implied consent law. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve his eleven month, twenty-nine day sentence in jail with release eligibility at 75% service. On appeal the defendant raises three issues. First, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for DUI. Second, the defendant maintains the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after the arresting officer referred to “seizing” the defendant’s vehicle. Finally, the defendant asserts the trial court erred in ordering incarceration for 75% of the sentence imposed. We have examined each issue and determined that the judgment of the trial court must be AFFIRMED.

I am unable to join with my colleagues in concluding that the defendant’s consent “was obtained during a period of lawful detention.” Finding the search unreasonable under Fourth Amendment protections, I would suppress the evidence.

The appellant, Marcin Piotr Mikolajczak, pled nolo contendere to a charge of rape. As part of the plea agreement the appellant was sentenced as a standard offender for a Class B felony with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to serve eight years with the Department of Correction at 100% as a violent offender, without probation, split confinement or other alternative sentencing. The appellant now appeals alleging that the trial court erred in not granting alternative sentencing. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was stopped for failing to use a turn signal when making a left-hand turn. The officer obtained consent to search her person, vehicle, and motel room. Upon searching her motel room, the officer found cocaine. The defendant filed a motion to suppress that the trial court denied. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession of cocaine greater than .5 grams. The defendant reserved a certified question as to whether her consent was valid under the federal and state constitutions. We conclude that the defendant’s consent was voluntarily given and that the evidence was properly admitted at trial. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Matthew Stalcup, pled guilty in the Union County Criminal Court to reckless vehicular homicide, a Class C felony, and driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent for the DUI conviction and prohibited him from driving for one year. After a sentencing hearing for the reckless vehicular homicide conviction, the trial court sentenced him to five years to be served as one year in jail and the remainder suspended upon his serving ten years on supervised probation. The trial court also prohibited him from driving for ten years, ordered that the five-year sentence be served consecutively to the eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence, and ordered that the ten-year driving prohibition be served concurrently to the one-year prohibition. The defendant appeals his sentence for reckless vehicular homicide, claiming (1) that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion, (2) that the trial court erred by denying his request for full probation, (3) that the trial court improperly weighed enhancement and mitigating factors, (4) that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the five-year sentence consecutively to the eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence, and (5) that the trial court's prohibiting him from driving for ten years is excessive. We affirm the sentence, except we conclude that the defendant should be prohibited from driving for five years.

The Petitioner, William Patrick Roberson, pled guilty to first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life without the possibility of parole. The Petitioner did not appeal his convictions or his sentence and later filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, holding that it failed to state a factual basis for the grounds alleged. Based upon our de novo review, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition because the petition adequately states a factual basis for ineffective assistance of counsel and the involuntariness of his guilty plea. Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand to the post-conviction court for appointment of counsel and the opportunity for counsel to amend the petition.

The Defendant, Jonathan Abernathy, Jr., was convicted by a jury of tampering with evidence. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not suppressing testimony of police officers regarding the actions they witnessed the Defendant take during their search of his residence. He contends that the search was illegal because the search warrant that the officers executed at his residence was invalid; therefore, the officers should have been precluded from testifying as to what they witnessed while they were at the Defendant's residence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Carla Juanita Prince, was convicted of DUI, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and reckless driving, a Class B misdemeanor. She was sentenced, respectively, to eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended except for forty-eight hours, and six months, suspended except for forty-eight hours. The two forty-eight-hour jail terms were ordered to be served consecutively, and the probationary terms were ordered to be served concurrently. Additionally, her driver's license was revoked for one year and she was fined a total of $360. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for DUI. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.