APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We accepted this extraordinary appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 10, to review certain pre-hearing actions of the Davidson County Criminal Court in this post-conviction case. Our grant of review extends to these issues: (1) whether a "next friend" may file a post-conviction petition on behalf of an incompetent prisoner; (2) if so, may the post-conviction court, sua sponte, order a mental evaluation of the prisoner or conduct other inquiries into the matter to determine whether the "next friend" petition was properly filed on the prisoner's behalf; and (3) whether the court below properly denied the petitioner's motion for recusal. We conclude that we improvidently granted extraordinary review in part, but we otherwise affirm the rulings of the lower court and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant appeals from his convictions for facilitation of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, resisting arrest and criminal impersonation. The only issue raised by the defendant is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault. Based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that the co-defendant's conduct amounted to aggravated assault and that the defendant, as a party to the offense, was criminally responsible for that conduct. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A Sumner County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Joseph Arbuckle, of one count of driving under the influence, one count of driving under the influence, per se, and one count of driving under
the influence, second offense. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but sixty days suspended. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test, (2) admitting the blood alcohol test results despite
incomplete evidence of the chain of custody, (3) admitting the blood alcohol test results despite a lack of relevance, and (4) finding that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find the Defendant guilty. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant was convicted by a Bradley County jury of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years' incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement to police; (3) that the trial court erred by allowing into evidence autopsy photographs of the victim; (4) that the jury considered extraneous facts during deliberation and that the trial court erred in the manner in which it conducted a post-trial voir dire of the jury concerning this matter; and (5) that he was improperly sentenced. Having reviewed the record, we conclude (1) that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant's conviction for second degree murder; (2) that the trial court did not err by allowing the Defendant's statement into evidence; (3) that the trial court did not err by admitting into evidence autopsy photographs of the victim; (4) that the record does not support the Defendant's allegation that jurors in his case were influenced by extraneous information and that the manner in which the trial court conducted a post-trial voir dire of the jurors concerning this matter was not improper; and (5) that the Defendant was properly sentenced. We thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was tried and convicted of second degree murder in the Cumberland County Criminal Court in connection with an aggravated assault of a bar patron who died approximately one month later. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to 25 years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant takes issue with the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on "diminished capacity" and with the length of the sentence he received. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment below.

Defendant appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the State of Tennessee never surrendered jurisdiction over defendant and that defendant's sentence did not expire. We accordingly affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The petitioner, Roger M. Gardner, appeals the order of the Sullivan County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. A Sullivan County jury found the petitioner guilty of attempted aggravated kidnapping, and the trial court subsequently sentenced him to serve eight years as a Range II multiple offender. The petitioner challenged his conviction on direct appeal, and this Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Roger Morris Gardner, No. 03C01-9712-CR-00524, 1999 WL 486847, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville July 13, 1999). Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial misconduct, the trial court's lack of jurisdiction, and denial of statutory rights. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now brings this appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, we find that none of these allegations merit relief and therefore affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

The defendant appeals from his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated assault. The imposition of a six (6)-month jail term pursuant to a sentence of five (5) years in split confinement is appropriate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Sidney McGlowan, filed for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the petitioner alleges that the court erred by dismissing his petition without appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Lewis A. Forbess, entered pleas of guilt to aggravated rape, theft of property between $10,000.00 and $60,000.00, aggravated burglary, and possession of a weapon in a penal facility. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences as follows:

Offense                                                                       Term                                                          Range
Aggravated Rape                                                     25 years                                          100% Violent Offender
Theft                                                                           15 years                                            Persistent Offender
Aggravated Burglary                                               15 years                                             Persistent Offender
Possession of Contraband in a Penal Facility  10 years                                             Persistent Offender

The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to an earlier burglary sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the sentences are excessive. The judgments are affirmed.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant, Galgalo B. Halake, for first-degree murder. The petit jury convicted him of that offense. The defendant filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for new trial, but granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal by reducing the defendant's conviction to second-degree murder. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve twenty-two years of incarceration. The state appeals the trial court's reduction of the conviction to second-degree murder. The defendant appeals his conviction, challenging the admission of certain testimony, the trial court's failure to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the propriety of his sentence. We find that there is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding of guilt of first degree murder. However, because the trial court erred in allowing lay opinion testimony concerning blood spatters, we reverse the decision of the lower court and remand this case for a new trial.

The defendant, Ronald Cox, was found guilty of robbery following a jury trial in the Shelby County Criminal Court. In this appeal, he raises three issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his request to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft; and (3) whether the trial court erred in its answers to questions submitted to the trial court during jury deliberations. Defendant is not entitled to relief on the first and third issues. However, under the recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision in State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69 (Tenn. 2001), we hold that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to include the lesser-included offense of theft in the charge to the jury. Therefore, we reverse Defendant's conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

Defendant appeals his conviction of second degree murder following a jury trial. He presents three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to disregard certain hearsay testimony; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to rule on defendant's objection to a question asked by the prosecuting attorney. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Westminster Realty Company, appeals an order entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court denying its claim to an interest in the proceeds from the sale of property pursuant to forfeiture proceedings. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Steven Lloyd Givens, was convicted of attempted especially aggravated kidnapping in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years as a Range I offender to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized during the Defendant's arrest, (2) denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of a show-up identification of the Defendant by the victim, (3) denying the Defendant's motion to amend the indictment, and (4) in sentencing the Defendant to the maximum sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Deadrick Pigg, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Davidson County of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine.¹ After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to serve eight years in the Department of Correction. In his appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict because the verdict was based solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach the Defendant with evidence of past convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant appeals from a bench trial where he was found guilty of one count of assault and one count of aggravated assault. Sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction of aggravated assault. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim is wholly unsubstantiated. We affirm the judgments from the trial court.

This matter is before us on the court’s own motion to correct errors associated with entries of an order on rehearing, opinion and judgment on October 15, 2001. A brief procedural history is in order to understand the basis for the court’s action in the instant order. On July 11, 2001, this court entered an opinion and judgment in this case. The defendant thereafter moved for rehearing, and we granted his motion on August 14, 2001. On October 15, 2001, we entered an order which addressed the merits of the defendant’s rehearing issue. That order also contained the following language, “The judgment previously entered is WITHDRAWN and is RE-ENTERED as of the entry of this order.” (Emphasis in original.) Although that order directed the withdrawal and reentry of the judgment, both the opinion and the judgment of July 11 were withdrawn and reentered on that date. The withdrawal and reentry of the opinion was in error. Moreover, that erroneous action prompted the accrual of additional costs.

The defendant, Tony Williams, appeals the trial court's denial of pretrial diversion after a petition for certiorari from the decision of the district attorney. In this discretionary appeal under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the single issue presented for review is whether the denial of pretrial diversion qualified as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The judgment denying relief is affirmed.

Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to second degree murder for which he received a sentence of 15 years. He contends his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, and he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The state contends the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude the petition was barred by the statute of limitations and is otherwise without merit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for theft of property valued less than $1000 but greater than $500, a Class E felony, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant was indicted for premeditated first degree murder, convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, and sentenced to 25 years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant alleges: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the state failed to provide him with exculpatory evidence; (3) the state destroyed evidence, thereby depriving him of due process; and (4) the trial court erroneously failed to grant a continuance or mistrial when a witness became ill and was unavailable to testify. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Charles Mitchell, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder and resulting sentence of life without parole. First, he contends that his mental condition prevented him from knowingly and intelligently entering his guilty plea. Second, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense attorneys (1) did not seek to suppress statements that the petitioner gave to police soon after he murdered his wife; (2) did not use diminished mental capacity in his defense; (3) induced him to plead guilty by telling him that the state had filed a notice to seek the death penalty when no such notice had been filed; and (4) failed to request a more detailed mental evaluation of him. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

The defendant was convicted by a jury on one count of sale of marijuana, a Class E felony, and one count of possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the sale of marijuana conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted rebuttal testimony regarding an undisclosed, out-of-court statement made by the defendant; and (3) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on simple possession of marijuana as a lesser-included offense. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude (1) the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions; (2) the failure of the state to disclose the out-of-court statement made during the defendant's interrogation violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A); and (3) the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on simple possession of marijuana as a lesser-included offense. The conviction for sale of marijuana is reversed; the conviction for possession of cocaine is affirmed; and this matter is remanded for a new trial on the sale of marijuana.