APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Waylon D. Knott, was indicted by a Stewart County Grand Jury on one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, one count of possession with intent to sell methamphetamine, and one count of felony possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a traffic stop for improper registration, Knott, after first refusing, granted consent to search his vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a quantity of drugs. Knott moved to suppress the evidence upon grounds that consent was not voluntarily given. The trial court granted Knott's motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment, finding that the "search was unconstitutional because the officer had no reasonable, articulable suspicion of further criminal activity to justify the request to search the vehicle and further detain [Knott]." The State appeals from the trial court's ruling asserting that Knott's consent was voluntary and therefore the search was valid. We find that the dispositive issues presented are: (1) whether Knott was unlawfully detained at the time that he consented to the search and, if so; (2) whether Knott's consent to search was voluntarily given. Because no findings were entered relevant to these issues, we are required to remand for findings of fact on these questions. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea of guilty was involuntarily entered. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant appeals from the trial court's imposition of the maximum sentences within the range. The State agrees that the trial court erred in applying enhancement factor (7). After review, we conclude that neither enhancement factor (7) nor (15) is applicable under these facts. Therefore, the defendant's sentence is modified to the statutorily required sentences of eight years in the Department of Correction at 100 percent for the aggravated sexual battery offense and to three years on each attempted aggravated sexual battery offense.

The petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that the trial court denied him an opportunity to have a full and fair hearing on the merits of his claim. After review, we agree with the trial court and affirm the dismissal.

The appellant, Ronald W. Byrd, was convicted in the Sullivan County Criminal Court of attempt to commit aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal trespass, and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court should have permitted the jury to consider the issue of whether the appellant's conduct was fairly motivated by his desire to make a citizen's arrest; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction of attempted aggravated kidnapping. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Phillip Michael Cisson, entered pleas of guilt on two counts of burglary and two counts of theft over $1,000. The plea agreement provided for concurrent two-year sentences on each conviction. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erroneously denied probation. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel failed to call certain witnesses and did not call the petitioner to testify on his own behalf at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petitioner any relief.

After waiving his right to a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. For this offense he received a sentence of two years as a Range I, standard offender. However, the trial court ordered this sentence suspended after the service of thirty days. Through this appeal the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing impeachment evidence to be introduced through Officer Steve Blankenship and that the evidence is insufficient to support his having possessed the marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver it. After reviewing the record, we find that neither of these claims merit reversal and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction, but remand for correction of the judgment to reflect the defendant was convicted at a bench trial.

In this felony drug possession case, the state appeals from the trial court's order suppressing as evidence all items, including marijuana, seized during a search of the defendants' home. It contends that the trial court erred in determining that the affidavit for the search warrant did not establish probable cause to warrant a search. Based upon the record before us, we are constrained to affirm the trial court.

The summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed because the petitioner failed to adequately allege ineffective assistance of counsel based upon conflict of interests and the claim of incompetency to stand trial is waived.

The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition wherein he attacks the validity of a probation revocation proceeding. After a review of the record we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr. appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in his conviction proceedings, which ultimately caused him to plead guilty rather than take his case to trial. Gagne is serving an effective term of two consecutive life sentences consecutively to a prior twelve-year sentence. His petition involves his convictions upon guilty pleas for crimes of larceny, theft, aggravated burglary and two counts of felony murder. Following an evidentiary hearing, the lower court ruled that Gagne failed to establish his ineffective assistance claim. We hold that he has failed to demonstrate the error of that ruling, and we therefore affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.

The appellant, Allan Brooks, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The appellant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to (1) demand a sequestered jury, (2) object to a display used by the prosecution during cross-examination of the appellant, (3) object to the mention of the appellant's first trial, and (4) seek an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling regarding the testimony of Josh Peyton, the victim's six year old son. We find that the appellant received effective assistance of counsel and that his claims to the contrary are without merit. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted in a jury trial of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, and of driving on a revoked license. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the stop of his truck was an unreasonable seizure, (2) that the state failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of his breath test results, (3) that the breath test was invalid because it was given when he had tobacco in his mouth, and (4) that his DUI sentence to confinement to be served at one hundred percent is legally impermissible. We affirm the convictions, but we conclude that the defendant is entitled to good conduct credits. Because of discrepancies between the sentencing transcript and the judgments of conviction, we remand the case for review of the sentences and entry of corrected judgments, if necessary.

The defendant, John Waymann Orr, appeals from his probation revocation which resulted primarily from his conviction for public intoxication and alcohol abuse. He contends that with his alcohol abuse and mental health problems, he should be receiving treatment and should not be confined in jail. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant was convicted upon his guilty pleas to three counts of unlawfully photographing individuals in violation of their privacy, a Class A misdemeanor, and received concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentences to be served in confinement in the county jail. The defendant appeals the trial court's denying him probation of any type. We affirm the denial of probation, but we remand the case for entry of corrected judgments.

The petitioner, Tracy Lamar Belle, Sr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief contending that his right to due process has been violated by the application of the statute of limitations. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and because "the interest of justice" does not require the waiver of a timely notice, this appeal is dismissed. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a).

The defendant, Larry D. Upshaw, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of 38 years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Jeremy Michael Shelton, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000. The trial court imposed a three-year sentence. One year is to be served in continuous confinement and the remaining two years are to be served in Community Corrections. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient and that the sentence is excessive. The conviction is affirmed. The judgment is modified, however, to reflect that the confinement portion of the split sentence is to be served in the local jail.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. The defendant was sentenced to a fifteen-year sentence at the Tennessee Department of Correction as a Range II offender. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at the defendant’s trial was sufficient to support his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity on two counts of second degree murder pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-210, and on one count of aggravated arson pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-302. After the court found the appellant not guilty by reason of insanity, the appellant was committed to Western Mental Health Institute for diagnosis and evaluation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303. At the conclusion of the appellant's diagnosis and evaluation, the doctors conducting the evaluation determined that the appellant was not committable under the Tennessee Code Annotated and refused to sign certificates of certification for the appellant to be involuntarily committed. At the end of the initial sixty (60) day diagnosis and evaluation period, the doctors at Western Mental Health Institute sought to have the appellant released into a mandatory outpatient treatment program. A hearing was conducted after the ninety (90) day mandatory release date, and the trial court ordered that the appellant be returned to Western Mental Health Institute. The appellant brought this appeal asserting that the trial court erred in ordering her continued detention after the expiration of the maximum ninety (90) day commitment period, and that such detention violates her rights. The state in its brief concedes error. After a thorough review of the issue presented in this case, we agree with the appellant and the state that the trial court erred. This case is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with the instruction set forth herein.

The appellant, Augusto Oviedo, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of robbery and was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) whether the trial court failed to fully consider all mitigating factors when it sentenced the appellant to the maximum in the range for the crime. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After trial, a Putnam County jury found Defendant guilty of the unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine over .5 grams, for resale, driving under the influence of an intoxicant, the unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and evading arrest. Further, the jury determined Defendant should pay fines of $100,000, $2,500, $2,500, and $1,500 for each respective offense. Subject to a sentencing agreement, the trial court imposed a sentence of nine (9) years on the cocaine offense and 11 months and 29 days for each misdemeanor. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently and imposed judgment for the fines in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Defendant presents two appellate issues: (1) Whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of sale of cocaine over 0.5 grams, driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia?; and (2) Whether Defendant's fines are excessive? After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment

The defendant was indicted for attempted especially aggravated robbery, and a Shelby County jury subsequently convicted the defendant as charged. In this appeal, the defendant alleges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm the conviction.

A Fayette County jury convicted the defendant of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to the maximum term of 15 years as a Range III persistent offender. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.