APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, William Henry Vaughan, IV, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated arson. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and to twenty-five years for the arson, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant makes the following claims: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (3) the sequestered jury was separated; (4) the trial court erred by admitting a police officer's written report in its entirety; (5) he was deprived of his fundamental constitutional right to testify; (6) the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions; and (7) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Because we find that the Defendant was deprived of his fundamental constitutional right to testify, and because the State has failed to demonstrate that the deprivation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we vacate the Defendant's convictions and remand this matter for a new trial.

Indicted for the February 10, 2001 first degree premeditated murder of Anthony Sims, the defendant, John Wayne Britt, was convicted by a Henderson County jury of second degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 25 years in the Department of Correction. Now on appeal, the defendant claims that insufficient evidence supports his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Christopher Paul Wilson, pled guilty to one count of reckless vehicular homicide, a Class C felony, and three counts of reckless aggravated assault, Class D felonies. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of six years for the reckless vehicular homicide conviction and two years for each of the reckless aggravated assault convictions, for an effective sentence of six years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, James Oliver Ross, 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 cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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 his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable ground for reopening his petition. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

Lori Ann Duncan appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's revocation of her probationary sentence. Duncan claims that the lower court abused its discretion in ordering her to serve her sentence in incarceration in the Department of Correction. However, we are unpersuaded and affirm the lower court's judgment.

The defendant, Billy M. Higgins, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation for failure to complete a drug rehabilitation program. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court.

The appellant, Kevin Lamont Hutchison, was convicted by a jury in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant to seventeen years imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Franklin County jury convicted the Defendant of one count of Sale of a Schedule II Controlled Substance, cocaine, and one count of Delivery of a Controlled Substance, also cocaine. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eight years in prison. The Defendant appeals, contending: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (2) that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After reviewing the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant's convictions and the trial court did not err in sentencing the Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Andre Anthony, was convicted of two counts of forgery over five hundred dollars, one count of forgery over one thousand dollars, one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. In his appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempt to commit first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery; (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through an inventory search of Defendant's vehicle; (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that "serious bodily injury" is an element of the offense of especially aggravated robbery; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering Defendant's sentences for attempt to commit first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery to be served consecutively. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of facilitation of felony murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced to twenty-three years. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in 1) allowing testimony by Dozier that the defendant told her the victim had been involved in the robbery because the statement was inadmissible hearsay, and 2) refusing to admit the prior written statement of Dozier into evidence under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 613(b). We remand for correction of the judgment form to reflect the correct felony classifications. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.

Charles Johnston appeals from his Carter County Criminal Court conviction of contempt of court. He claims that the evidence does not sufficiently support the conviction, that his due process rights were violated in the conviction proceedings, that the court erroneously admitted an audiotape of prior proceedings in the general sessions court, that he was sentenced too harshly and unfairly denied judicial diversion, and that the lower court abused its discretion in setting his appeal bond. Because we discern no reversible error, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. He argues his guilty plea to second degree murder was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Travis Anderson, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, with an agreed sentence of three years on each count to be served concurrently. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to determine whether the Defendant merited for alternative sentencing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s application for judicial diversion, suspended his sentence for three years, and placed the Defendant on probation for three years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his application for judicial diversion. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The defendant was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and robbery. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in (1) not properly transferring the case from juvenile court, (2) denying her request for a continuance, (3) admitting a tape recorded statement by the defendant, (4) admitting certain photographs of the victim, (5) refusing to allow expert testimony regarding the defendant's mental condition, (6) refusing to allow evidence of a co-defendant's subsequent crimes, (7) failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser included offenses, and (8) sentencing. We conclude that the trial court erred in applying enhancement factors six and ten. The trial court also erred in not applying the mitigating factor (victim released alive) to the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. The sentence is reduced for (1) aggravated robbery from ten years to nine years, (2) aggravated kidnapping from ten years to nine years, and (3) especially aggravated kidnapping from twenty-one years to twenty years. We reverse the trial court's determination that the sentences should be served consecutively. We remand to the trial court to amend the judgment for case number 01-00564 to reflect that the defendant was a standard violent offender rather than a repeat violent offender. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

Each of the defendants in this case was convicted of drug charges following the search of their home. They contend that the search warrant was invalid because of material misrepresentations and lack of probable cause. They also contend the trial court erred in sentencing each of them. After careful review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not err in failing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, and we affirm each defendant’s conviction. After de novo review of the trial court’s sentencing determinations, we modify the sentences of defendants Scott and Tharpe. The sentence of Felicia Ann Taylor is affirmed. Accordingly, the case is remanded for entry of corrected judgments of conviction consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Mikel Ulysees Primm, was convicted of speeding, simple possession of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and criminal impersonation. The trial court imposed a sentence of 30 days for the speeding offense, 11 months and 29 days on each of the three possession offenses, and six months for the criminal impersonation offense. The sentence for criminal impersonation is to be served consecutively to the sentence for simple possession of cocaine. The remaining sentences are to be served concurrently to the sentence for simple possession of cocaine and to each other. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court provided erroneous instructions to the jury as to the definition of constructive possession. The judgments are affirmed.

The appellant, Jesse Tuggle, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of forgery, one count of theft of property valued under $500, and one count of criminal impersonation. The trial court sentenced the appellant to one and one-half years of imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the forgery conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days imprisonment for the theft conviction, and six months imprisonment for the criminal impersonation conviction. The trial court further ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the appellant contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his forgery conviction and argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Treasa Renee Shorter, pled guilty to possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court imposed a sentence of nine years and nine months to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant contends: (1) her sentence is excessive; and (2) the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Lavondas Cordell Nelson, pled guilty to one count of reckless endangerment with a weapon and one count of possession of a handgun by a felon in the Rutherford County Circuit Court, and the trial court imposed suspended two year sentences for each count, to be served consecutively, plus four years of probation at the expiration of those terms. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion requesting that the trial court appoint an attorney to represent him during the habeas corpus proceeding. The trial court denied his motion and dismissed his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that: (1) the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus; and (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant was indicted by a Putnam County Grand Jury for one count of first degree murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery and one count of especially aggravated burglary. On September 18, 2000, the State filed a Notice of Intent to Seek Punishment of Imprisonment for Life Without Possibility of Parole. The Grand Jury later returned a Superceding Indictment including charges of First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Premeditated Murder, Especially Aggravated Robbery and Especially Aggravated Burglary. At trial, the trial court reduced the premeditated first degree murder count to second degree murder for consideration by the jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted the defendant of felony murder, second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated burglary, and immediately sentenced the defendant to life without parole on the first degree felony murder count. The trial court merged the defendant's second degree murder conviction into the first degree felony murder conviction and sentenced the defendant to twenty-five (25) years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and to twelve (12) years for the especially aggravated burglary conviction. The trial court ran the twenty-five (25) year sentence consecutive to the life without parole sentence and ran the twelve (12) year sentence concurrent to the twenty-five (25) year sentence. The defendant appeals from the trial court based on four issues: (1) Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) whether the Tennessee sentencing scheme for life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional if the aggravating circumstances, contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204, are not part of the indictment; and (4) whether the Tennessee sentencing scheme for life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional. We find these issues do not merit a reversal of this conviction and affirm the trial court.

The appellant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The felony murder convictions were merged into the premeditated murder convictions. Thereafter, the jury sentenced the appellant to death based upon the existence of three aggravating circumstances: the appellant had previously been convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of defendant or another; and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to twenty-five years imprisonment for especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, to run consecutively to his sentences for first degree murder and to a prior out-of-state sentence. On appeal, appellant presents forty-five issues. After an extensive review of the record and the applicable law, we find that none of these issues warrants a reversal of this case. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.