APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant pled guilty in Hardin County Circuit Court to a three count indictment for theft of property, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of a controlled substance. The defendant received an effective sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections.  After seven months in Wayne County Boot Camp, he was placed on probation. A probation violation warrant was issued charging that the defendant had failed to make payments; failed to appear in court; left the state without permission; and been arrested on a new charge. Following a hearing, the probation was revoked, and the defendant timely appealed. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Chesteen, served as the Clerk and Master of the Cocke County  Chancery Court from 1984 to 1996. In 1997, he was charged with theft relating to his service in the capacity as conservator of funds of two elderly ladies and with unlawful conversion related to funds misappropriated by him in his official capacity. He pleaded guilty, with the sentencing determination to be made by the trial court. The court imposed an effective six-year incarcerative sentence along with restitution of $101,821.73. Upon review, we hold that the trial court erred in some of its sentencing determinations. We affirm in part, modify in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further determination regarding aspects of the sentencing issues.

The defendant appeals from his Class C felony conviction of possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than .5 grams. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (Supp. 1998).  After entering a best interest guilty plea, the defendant was sentenced to five years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender and fined $2000. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sentence imposed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James M. Lane, Jr. appeals by permission of the trial and appellate courts. Indicted for two counts of aggravated perjury, he alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reverse the district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Because the prosecutor relied upon improper grounds for denying diversion, we reverse the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion in denying diversion. We remand to the trial court with instructions that the prosecutor enter into a memorandum of understanding for pretrial diversion with the defendant.

T he D efendant w as indicted for one count of agg ravated robbery and one count of theft over $1,000. He w as subsequently tried by a T ipton C ounty jury and found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft over $500. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing introduction of an involuntary statement which he made to police following his arrest, by failing to grant his motion for new trial on the basis of insufficient evidence, and by sentencing him incorrectly. We hold that the trial court did not err by admitting the Defendant’ s statement to police, that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, and that the Defendant was properly sentenced. Accordingly , we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

T he Defendant was convicted in the Hardeman County Circuit Court of delivery of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, and he appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction; (2) the trial court properly denied the Defendant’s motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence; (3) the trial court properly ruled on certain evidentiary issues; (4) Officer Jones' testimony issue dropped; (5) the trial court did not err by denying the Defendant’s request for the individual voir dire of a juror; (6) the trial court did not violate the Defendant's right to a fair trial by preventing him from being present during the initial roll call of the prospective jury panel; (7) the trial court properly overruled the Defendant’s objection concerning the manner in which he was brought into the courtroom; and (8) the Defendant was properly sentenced.