APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant was convicted of reckless aggravated assault and sentenced as a Standard Range I offender to two (2) years, with all but ten (10) days suspended. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant acted recklessly in causing serious bodily injury to the victim. However, applying the appropriate factors for consideration, we conclude that the defendant is eligible for judicial diversion, and there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's denial of the defendant's request for judicial diversion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

The appellant, Russell Lane Overby, appeals from the Hardin County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On December 8, 1997, Overby was found guilty of rape by a Hardin County jury, and was sentenced to a term of twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this collateral attack of his rape conviction, Overby alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, both at trial and on direct appeal. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Kardius Wilks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Wilks contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his first degree murder conviction because the State failed to prove that the murder was premeditated and intentionally committed. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner was convicted by a Cocke County jury of seven counts of selling cocaine and one count of simple possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied postconviction relief, and this appeal ensued. Concluding that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant was found guilty of violating the state speeding law by the Fairview City Court and, on appeal, was again found guilty by the Circuit Court of Williamson County. In this appeal, defendant contends he was denied his constitutional right to trial by jury, and the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Although we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, we conclude defendant was deprived of his right to trial by jury. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The appellant, Walter McGill, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery by an authority figure and was sentenced to five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant him full probation, or, in the alternative, split confinement. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a Davidson County jury of DUI. In this appeal, he alleges the Vehicular Crimes Grand Jury, which was convened in Davidson County to consider only vehicle-related crimes, was illegally empaneled. He further contends the investigatory stop of his automobile was improper. We affirm.

The defendant, Jack Clayton Moberly, Jr., was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class D felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of ten years for the aggravated robbery conviction, two years for the conspiracy to commit robbery conviction, and four years for the aggravated assault conviction. The defendant appeals his aggravated robbery conviction, claiming that the indictment fails to allege that offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted an extraordinary appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(a), to consider the Washington County Criminal Court’s denial of the defendant’s ex parte motion seeking funds for expert services, as outlined in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 and the holding in State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1995). We stayed the trial court’s proceedings pending our consideration of this issue. Upon a thorough review of the record in this case, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we reverse the ruling of the trial court, remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion, and lift the previously ordered stay so that trial court proceedings may resume.

The Appellant, Christopher Campbell, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court following his jury conviction for aggravated robbery. At sentencing, the trial court ordered that Campbell's eight-year sentence in this case be served consecutively to three prior convictions for aggravated robbery. On appeal, Campbell argues that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. Because the trial court failed to recite any reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by Rule 32, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, we are unable to perform appellate review of the sentencing issue. Accordingly, the case is remanded for determination of consecutive sentencing as provided by Rule 32.

The defendant, Hamadi G. Haley, was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a sentence of life with the possibility of parole for the felony murder, 17 years for the especially aggravated robbery, and eight years for the aggravated robbery, with all terms to be served concurrently. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that he was denied access to material witnesses by the state and that he should have been granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.