APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Donald Gene Brooks, stands convicted of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, theft of property valued over $1,000, and setting fire to personal property, all related to the robbery and killing of Joseph J. Wisniewski. He received his convictions following a jury trial in the Montgomery County Criminal Court. Brooks is incarcerated in the Department of Correction serving his effective sentence of life plus 27 years. In this direct appeal, Brooks challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the length of sentence imposed. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Devon Wells, appeals his convictions of two counts of sale of a Schedule II controlled substan ce following a jury trial in the Lincoln County Circu it Court. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II Multiple Offender to two consecutive sentences of nine (9) and seven (7) years. He was also fined a total of $100,000 for the two convictions. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentence imposed was excessive and contrary to law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Anthony P. Geanes, appeals as of right from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of delivery of a Schedule II con trolled substance. He was sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years as a Range II Offender. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficien cy of the evidence and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgm ent of the trial court.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court of Chester County entered an order which revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered her to serve her original sentence of four (4) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant, Amanda Treece, appeals from that action of the trial court. W hile Defendant does not challenge the revocation of probation, she argues in her sole issue on appeal that the trial court erred by requiring her to serve her entire sentence by incarceration in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.