APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This direct appeal of right for first degree murder for which the defendant received a sentence of life without parole raises five issues of alleged error: (1) sufficiency of evidence; (2) failure to suppress the defendant's statements; (3) improper admission of photographs; (4) improper testimony of experts at the penalty phase of trial; and (5) improper admission of evidence concerning a prior conviction of the defendant. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the first degree murder conviction. The issue concerning admissibility of the defendant's statement is waived by the defendant's failure to include the suppression hearing in the appellate record. We conclude that the remaining issues were properly decided by the trial court, and we, therefore, affirm the conviction.

The appellant, Paul Edward Pettibone, Jr., pled guilty to the offense of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C Felony. He was sentenced to four years as a Range I, standard offender. The trial judge ordered the appellant to serve his sentence in incarceration, but asserted that if the appellant successfully completed an addiction treatment program known as Lifeline Therapeutic Community, he could apply to the court to suspend the rest of his sentence.¹ In this appeal as of right, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant either an alternative sentence or a term of probation after a period of confinement. After a review of this case, we conclude that the evidence did not support the grant of an alternative sentence or a term of probation after a period of confinement and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Charles Lawuary, appeals from the trial court's order revoking Defendant's community corrections sentence and requiring him to serve the sentence in incarceration. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the community corrections sentence. After a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, James Eugene Parks, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief from robbery-related convictions. He contends that he did not voluntarily enter guilty pleas because he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the pleas. He also claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys did not investigate the case adequately. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petitions.

The appellant, Claude W. Cheeks, was convicted by a jury in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of one count of especially aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant appealed and on July 22, 2002, this court reversed his convictions, finding that the appellant had met his burden of establishing his insanity at the time of the offenses. The State filed an application for permission to appeal to our supreme court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The supreme court granted the State's application for the sole purpose of remanding the case to this court for reconsideration in light of its opinion in State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002). Upon reconsideration, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, serving an effective twenty-year sentence on three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, argues the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because: (1) his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently; and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Willie Ira Poteat, Jr., was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury for possession of more than 26 grams of cocaine for resale and criminal conspiracy to sell more than 26 grams of cocaine. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence taken during the execution of a search warrant, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges against him, reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law regarding the trial court's ruling on the suppression issue. We now address the Defendant's appeal based upon this certified question of law.

Defendant, Charles R. Palmquist, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to DUI first offense and reserved a certified question of law for appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i). After a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.