APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his “petition to correct illegal judgment/sentence.” Finding no basis for a rightful appeal or a discretionary appeal via the common law writ of certiorari, we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, John Ruff, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of the charges against him. He asks this Court to enter an order dismissing his case with prejudice. We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the charges against the Defendant without prejudice; thus, we affirm the action of the trial court.

I concur with the majority’s rationale that led to the conclusion that the charges were properly dismissed below without prejudice. However, I also agree with the majority’s statements about the unavailability of a Rule 3 appeal in this case. Because no appeal as a matter of right is
availed to the defendant under Rule 3, I would conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s issue with respect to the dismissal of charges without prejudice. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). Although the practical result is the same in that the action of the trial court is not being reversed, I would dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Donald Craig Miller, pled guilty to burglary, Class D felony, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement wherein he was to receive a sentence of four (4) years, with the manner of the service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court following the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the four-year sentence, but ordered three and one-half years incarceration, followed by service of four years in Community Corrections in a "split-confinement" sentence. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a "Motion for Clarification of Judgment Order" which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. The Defendant filed a notice of appeal. We hold that this matter should be treated as a petition for common law writ of certiorari rather than a Rule 3, T.R.A.P. appeal, and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for relief from his conviction for aggravated child abuse, arguing that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not present during voir dire; and, (3) he was denied his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. After the post-conviction court denied his petition, the petitioner appealed to this court. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

Hagan Paul Roberts (herein petitioner) appeals the dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The petitioner claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call two witnesses to testify at the trial. The trial Court found that the petitioner did not inform his trial counsel of these witnesses and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial Court.

The defendant, Parker Odell Doney, Jr., appeals his convictions for one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault and his sentences totaling fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court erred in sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record, we reduce the aggravated assault sentences but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Cheatham County jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated burglary and theft for breaking into his neighbor's home and stealing two television sets, a VCR, and a computer. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years for the aggravated burglary count and as a career offender to twelve years for the theft count, with the sentences to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; the failure of the trial court to order a mistrial based on testimony alluding to the defendant's criminal past; and the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the crime of accessory after the fact on the theory that it is a lesser-included offense of both indicted offenses. Finding the evidence sufficient and no other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a post-conviction appeal. In 1988, appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and received a life sentence. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, attacking his conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Subsequently, the appellant filed the instant three petitions for post-conviction relief. Two of appellant's petitions attack the validity of the petitioner's convictions for grand larceny and third degree burglary, which were used to enhance his 1988 sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon. The third petition addresses the 1988 sentence and attacks the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to another of petitioner's prior convictions. The trial court summarily dismissed the petitions for failing to comply with the applicable statute of limitations and failing to state an appropriate ground upon which a successive petition could be lodged. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the petitions is affirmed.

The defendant appeals his conviction of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and vandalism under $500.00. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, the sentence of two years was excessive, and the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to community corrections with the condition that he serve 200 days in the county jail. We find no error and affirm the trial court.

This appeal arises from the sentence that the Shelby County Criminal Court imposed upon James M. Williams, after a previous appeal to this court resulted in a modification of his original two-year incarcerative sentence to a sentence ordered to be served on probation. The defendant contests the trial court's authority to resentence him to serve 60 days in a correctional facility, with the balance of his two-year sentence to be served on probation. The defendant also challenges his new sentence as the product of judicial vindictiveness, and he claims that he is entitled to full probation based on the facts of the case. After a review of the record, we reverse the split-confinement sentence, order that the defendant serve his sentence on full probation with conditions, and remand for defendant to begin immediate service of his sentence.

The Defendant, Aaron Bernard Gray, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he asserts that he should have been granted post-conviction relief because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, because the trial court abused its discretion by finding the victim competent to testify, and because the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial. We hold that the Defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his other two issues are either waived or previously determined. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.