APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Sevier County Grand Jury returned a two count presentment alleging the defendant committed a vehicular homicide by intoxication for the death of one victim and a vehicular assault by intoxication for the serious bodily injury of another victim. The defendant pled guilty to the amended charges of vehicular homicide by recklessness and aggravated assault by recklessness for agreed concurrent sentences of six years and three years, respectively, with the issue of alternative sentencing to be determined by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the defendant to split confinement and ordered the defendant to serve nine months "day-for-day" in the county jail with the remainder of his six-year effective sentence on supervised probation. In this appeal, the defendant alleges he should have received community corrections, or alternatively, he received excessive confinement. We conclude the trial court improperly ordered the defendant to serve his nine months of confinement "day-for-day," thereby depriving him of the opportunity to earn good conduct credits. We remand for deletion of the day-for-day requirement; however, we affirm the trial court in all other respects.

A Hamilton County jury found the defendant guilty of DUI, third offense. On appeal, the sole issue is whether the trial court erred in not allowing the defendant to present testimony from a local health department nurse regarding the health department's procedures for storing and transporting blood samples, which are procured by the local health department for reasons unrelated to blood alcohol testing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On October 19, 2000, the Defendant entered "best interest" guilty pleas to two counts of child abuse and neglect and three counts of indecent exposure. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the Defendant received five sentences of 11 months and 29 days to be served at 75%. The plea agreement apparently contemplated a hearing to determine the manner of service of the sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve a split sentence on the first count with three months to be served on county work release and the balance of the sentence to be served on supervised probation. The court ordered each of the remaining sentences to be served on probation and consecutive to the split sentence, for an effective sentence of five years. It is from this order the Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Terry DeWayne Ogle, indicted for one count of aggravated assault, was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of rape of a child pursuant to a jury trial. He was charged with a total of four counts of rape of a child, with two counts per indictment. The trial court consolidated these two indictments for trial. However, the trial court dismissed one indictment due to certain improprieties that occurred during the testimony of one of the victims. For the aforementioned convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve an aggregate sentence of forty years, which was comprised of two consecutive twenty-year sentences. The defendant now brings the instant appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the defendant's conviction, the trial court's decision to consolidate the defendant's two indictments, and the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial at the close of the prosecutor's closing argument. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court improperly consolidated the two indictments for trial and therefore reverse and remand this case for a new trial.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of class A felony aggravated child abuse. A trial jury subsequently convicted him as charged. For this conviction the trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to serve twenty-one years. He next unsuccessfully pursued a motion for a judgment of acquittal or in the alternative a new trial. Through this appeal the defendant continues to assert that the trial court erred in not properly instructing the jury on lesser-included offenses and by admitting contested medical testimony. While the second contention merits no relief, we must reverse the conviction and remand the matter based upon error in instructing lesser-included offenses.

The Defendant, Janet Huffine Dykes, was convicted by a jury of one count of reckless aggravated assault and one count of aggravated child abuse through neglect. The trial court merged the assault conviction into the child abuse conviction and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals as of right, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of her convictions. We find the evidence is not sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of aggravated child abuse through neglect and therefore reverse that conviction. We find the evidence sufficient to support the reckless aggravated assault conviction, and affirm that conviction. Because the Defendant was not sentenced for reckless aggravated assault, we remand this case for sentencing on the Defendant's conviction for reckless aggravated assault.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant of three counts of rape of a child and of two counts of rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years for each rape of a child conviction and to ten years for each rape conviction. All sentences were to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of twenty-three years. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that the trial court erred by not severing the offenses involving different victims, (2) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict the Defendant of the charged offenses, and (3) that the cumulative error during the proceedings deprived the Defendant of a fair trial and due process of law. Concluding that the trial court's failure to sever the offenses was error and that the error was not harmless, we reverse the judgments of the trial court, sever the offenses by victim, and remand for new trials.