APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Hamilton County jury found the defendant guilty of DUI, third offense. On appeal, the sole issue is whether the trial court erred in not allowing the defendant to present testimony from a local health department nurse regarding the health department's procedures for storing and transporting blood samples, which are procured by the local health department for reasons unrelated to blood alcohol testing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On October 19, 2000, the Defendant entered "best interest" guilty pleas to two counts of child abuse and neglect and three counts of indecent exposure. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the Defendant received five sentences of 11 months and 29 days to be served at 75%. The plea agreement apparently contemplated a hearing to determine the manner of service of the sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve a split sentence on the first count with three months to be served on county work release and the balance of the sentence to be served on supervised probation. The court ordered each of the remaining sentences to be served on probation and consecutive to the split sentence, for an effective sentence of five years. It is from this order the Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Terry DeWayne Ogle, indicted for one count of aggravated assault, was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of class A felony aggravated child abuse. A trial jury subsequently convicted him as charged. For this conviction the trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to serve twenty-one years. He next unsuccessfully pursued a motion for a judgment of acquittal or in the alternative a new trial. Through this appeal the defendant continues to assert that the trial court erred in not properly instructing the jury on lesser-included offenses and by admitting contested medical testimony. While the second contention merits no relief, we must reverse the conviction and remand the matter based upon error in instructing lesser-included offenses.

The Defendant, Janet Huffine Dykes, was convicted by a jury of one count of reckless aggravated assault and one count of aggravated child abuse through neglect. The trial court merged the assault conviction into the child abuse conviction and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals as of right, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of her convictions. We find the evidence is not sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of aggravated child abuse through neglect and therefore reverse that conviction. We find the evidence sufficient to support the reckless aggravated assault conviction, and affirm that conviction. Because the Defendant was not sentenced for reckless aggravated assault, we remand this case for sentencing on the Defendant's conviction for reckless aggravated assault.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of rape of a child pursuant to a jury trial. He was charged with a total of four counts of rape of a child, with two counts per indictment. The trial court consolidated these two indictments for trial. However, the trial court dismissed one indictment due to certain improprieties that occurred during the testimony of one of the victims. For the aforementioned convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve an aggregate sentence of forty years, which was comprised of two consecutive twenty-year sentences. The defendant now brings the instant appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the defendant's conviction, the trial court's decision to consolidate the defendant's two indictments, and the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial at the close of the prosecutor's closing argument. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court improperly consolidated the two indictments for trial and therefore reverse and remand this case for a new trial.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant of three counts of rape of a child and of two counts of rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years for each rape of a child conviction and to ten years for each rape conviction. All sentences were to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of twenty-three years. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that the trial court erred by not severing the offenses involving different victims, (2) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict the Defendant of the charged offenses, and (3) that the cumulative error during the proceedings deprived the Defendant of a fair trial and due process of law. Concluding that the trial court's failure to sever the offenses was error and that the error was not harmless, we reverse the judgments of the trial court, sever the offenses by victim, and remand for new trials.

Appellant, Gregory Thompson, was convicted for the first degree murder of Brenda Lane. The murder occurred on January 1, 1985. The jury imposed the death penalty. Our supreme court affirmed the conviction and sentence of death. State v. Thompson, 768 S.W.2d 239 (Tenn. 1989). Appellant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was denied by the trial court, and the trial court's denial was subsequently affirmed by our Court. Thompson v. State, 958 S.W.2d 156 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Later, in 2001, Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which the trial court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing because it was filed after expiration of the applicable one-year statute of limitations. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant of one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The Defendant now appeals, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record, we find no error and thus affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Maurice Lashaun Nash, appeals his conviction by a Tipton County jury for facilitation of possession of marijuana, a schedule VI controlled substance, with intent to deliver, a class A misdemeanor. On appeal, Nash raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, and (2) whether the evidence in the record is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction. After a review of the record, we find plain error in the trial court's instruction to the jury charging the offense of facilitation, as this lesser offense was not fairly raised by the evidence. Accordingly, Nash's conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial upon the lesser offense of class A simple possession.

The petitioner, Gregory Fuller, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his felony cocaine possession conviction and resulting fifteen-year sentence. He contends that the trial court erred in denying relief, claiming that (1) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Marc A. Bland, appeals as of right the Lauderdale County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that his judgments of conviction are void due to illegal sentences contained therein. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

The Appellants, Robert Lee Goss and Carl W. Hale, were convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of first-degree murder and aggravated assault. They appeal as of right the judgment of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court denying their petitions for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Appellants argue that trial counsel were ineffective because they did not pursue a defense of insanity and/or diminished capacity. After review of the record, we find that the Appellants received the effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Giovanny Morpeau, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Wilson County Criminal Court. On November 2, 2001, the Appellant was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery. At the Appellant's initial appearance in the general sessions court on November 6, 2001, he was found indigent, bail was set at $50,000, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for December 19, 2001. On November 29, 2001, the Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from confinement upon grounds that his continued confinement beyond ten days, without being afforded a preliminary hearing, violated Rule 5(d) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 On November 30, 2001, the Appellant’s habeas corpus petition was denied. On December 10, 2001, the Appellant filed notice of appeal. On December 19, 2001, the Appellant's preliminary hearing was conducted in the general sessions court at which time he was bound over to the next term of the grand jury. During the January 2002 session of the Wilson County Criminal Court, the Appellant was indicted by the grand jury on one count of aggravated robbery.

The Defendant, Chad Daniel Easterly, pled guilty to kidnapping and evading arrest. The plea agreement included an effective eight year sentence as a Range I standard offender. The Defendant subsequently filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that his convictions were the result of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. After a hearing, the trial court denied relief. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Henry County Grand Jury indicted the fifteen-year-old Defendant for first degree murder. The Defendant was tried as an adult and convicted of the charged offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that his insanity defense was established by clear and convincing evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of conviction, modify the judgment to “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,” and remand for further proceedings pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 33-7-303.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the defendant of burglary and theft under $500. He received consecutive sentences of 10 years as a Range III offender and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. The defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the state to present a property receipt into evidence in lieu of coins found in the defendant's possession; (3) the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant pled guilty to two counts of Class D felony theft over $1,000 and was sentenced to the community corrections program for an effective period of three years. The trial court subsequently revoked his community corrections sentence and resentenced the defendant to consecutive sentences of four years on each count as a Range I standard offender, for an effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the proof was insufficient to revoke his community corrections sentence; and (2) the sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Given the present state of the law, I respectfully disagree with the result reached in the majority opinion. I believe that it was the jury’s prerogative to discredit some or all of the defendant’s experts’ testimony and to conclude that their testimony did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.

The defendant entered a guilty plea to Class D felony forgery and Class D felony theft for an agreed effective six-year sentence with the issue of alternative sentencing to be determined by the trial court. The trial court denied alternative sentencing. On appeal, the defendant contests the denial of community corrections. We affirm.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for facilitation of aggravated rape, facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping, facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary, raising three claims: (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) that his guilty plea was involuntary; and (3) that the indictment was fatally defective. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

The defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of sale of schedule II narcotics for agreed concurrent sentences of four years for each count, with the issue of alternative sentencing to be determined by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant contends he should have received alternative sentencing. We affirm.