APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years, six months in the county workhouse. In this appeal as of right, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to include "moral certainty" language in its reasonable doubt instruction to the jury; and (3) whether the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factor (10). Based upon a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jeffrey Miller appeals the Meigs County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petitions for writ of error coram nobis and writ of habeas corpus. Both petitions seek redress for Miller's grievance that he has been required to serve felony sentences in the Department of Correction, although his plea agreements designated the location of confinement to be the Meigs County Jail. Because neither coram nobis nor habeas corpus relief is available to address a concern of this nature and because the petitioner's claims are factually unfounded, we affirm.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for reinstatement of a motor vehicle operator's license pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 55-10-615(b). The court ruled that a subsequent conviction for driving without a license precluded the court from restoring the petitioner's driving privileges for a period of three years after the new conviction. After a careful review, we hold that the court incorrectly concluded it did not have discretion to grant driving privileges and remand to the court for reconsideration of the petition.

In this appeal, Mark A. Doolen, Jr. challenges the order of the Dickson County Circuit Court requiring the appellant's payment of restitution in the amount of $6,611.76 for his vandalism of two antique automobiles. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the appellant should have filed his appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Appellant, Edward Drummer, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. In September, 1997, Drummer pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape and was sentenced to fifteen years confinement in the Department of Correction. In 1998, Drummer filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging the validity of his guilty plea upon grounds of (1) voluntariness and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court, finding the claims unsupported, dismissed the petition. On appeal, Drummer contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Sullivan County grand jury issued presentments against the defendant on one count of operating a motor vehicle without a face shield; two counts of speeding; three counts of driving under the influence; three counts of driving on a revoked license; two counts of driving on revoked license after second or subsequent conviction for driving while intoxicated; one count of driving on revoked license after second or subsequent conviction for driving under the influence; one count of driving while intoxicated, fourth offense; and one count of driving under the influence, fourth offense. The charges resulted from three separate cases. The defendant pled to all of the crimes in two different plea hearings and the defendant was sentenced as a career offender to a total of eighteen years, with a minimum jail time of 585 days, and with his last six years to be served on probation. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a career offender and did not apprise the defendant of the possibility that he could be sentenced as a persistent offender, as opposed to a career offender. He moved to withdraw his guilty pleas on this ground. The trial court denied his motion, and he appeals the denial. Furthermore, the defendant waived his right to request probation or alternative sentencing in one case, and the state agreed to allow the defendant to serve probation in one case. In the third case, the defendant requested probation or alternative sentencing. The trial court denied his request, citing his extensive criminal history in support of its denial. The defendant also appeals this denial. After reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find these issues to be without merit and therefore affirm the lower court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and its denial of probation or alternative sentencing.