APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, John W. Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

Stefan Olaru filed an action for malpractice against his former attorney, Steven D. Brown. The trial court dismissed the complaint based upon the defendant's plea of a discharge in bankruptcy. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

On August 1, 2001, Defendant, Anthony Charles Henderson, entered guilty pleas to two counts of sale of cocaine in an amount less than .5 grams, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. Defendant received concurrent sentences of five years for his convictions with ninety days to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on supervised probation. Defendant was also ordered to pay $2,000 in fines. On July 24, 2002, a violation of probation warrant was issued. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Defendant violated the conditions of his probation and ordered Defendant to serve his original sentences in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court’s revocation of probation, arguing that there was no substantial evidence to support the revocation. Defendant also argues that the sentences imposed following the revocation were excessive. After reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Defendant’s probation and ordering Defendant to serve his original sentences in confinement.

The appellant, Joseph Chi-Choi Wong, was convicted by a jury on three counts of promoting prostitution and three counts of money laundering. As a result, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-four (24) years. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's decision to admit certain evidence that was found in the appellant's apartment; (2) the trial court's failure to dismiss the indictment due to the asserted unconstitutionality of the Tennessee prostitution and money laundering statutes; (3) the trial court's failure to sever the prostitution counts from the money laundering counts; (4) the trial court's failure to suppress the evidence procured from the appellant's apartment as a result of the search warrant; (5) the trial court's imposition of an excessive sentence; and (6) the trial court's failure to mitigate the appellant's sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Kewan Jackson, was found guilty by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of criminally negligent homicide and reckless aggravated assault. The appellant received a total effective sentence of three years in the Shelby County Workhouse. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the refusal of the trial court to remove a juror. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, James Edward Dicken, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder, Class A felonies. He was also convicted of one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. The defendant contends on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite intent required for committing first degree murder, (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on diminished capacity, and (3) the sentence was excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

At his first trial, the defendant, Steven A. Meyer, was convicted of first degree murder and the trial court, sua sponte, overturned the jury verdict, concluding that it was against the weight of the evidence. At the second trial, the jury again found the defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Terry Shropshire, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction is void or his term of imprisonment has expired. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals from his denial of post-conviction relief. He alleges ineffective counsel and error by the post-conviction judge. After careful review, we conclude that the petitioner failed to prove ineffective counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief.

The Trial Court held defendant’s purchase money security interest in cattle had priority over
plaintiffs’ prior security interest. On appeal, we affirm.

The appellant, Randy Anderson, pled guilty in the Henry County Circuit Court to manufacturing
methamphetamine and was sentenced to three years, with 180 days to be served in confinement and the balance to be served in the community corrections program. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served concurrently with a previous sentence in Madison County. The trial court subsequently revoked the appellant’s community corrections sentence and resentenced the appellant to four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to sentences imposed in Weakley and Dyer Counties. On appeal, the appellant challenges the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Billy David Grubb, pled guilty in 2001 to first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated burglary for which he was sentenced, respectively, to consecutive sentences of life without parole and twelve years. Subsequently, he filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, which was amended by counsel, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel had been ineffective by not seeking a pretrial mental evaluation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After review, we affirm the dismissal.

We granted review to determine whether the revocation of a community corrections sentence may be challenged in a post-conviction petition on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court found that the petitioner could not collaterally attack the revocation of his community corrections sentence in a post-conviction proceeding and dismissed the post-conviction petition. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' conclusion that a petitioner may challenge the revocation of a community corrections sentence in a post-conviction proceeding and that the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's post-conviction petition. We therefore affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The trial court awarded Appellee recision of a contract for purchase of an automobile. We affirm.

The petitioner, Orlando Malone, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner, Jimmy Leslie Sluder, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is affirmed.

This appeal involves an action for breach of an oral contract to pump out a swimming pool. The Circuit Court for Wilson County conducted a bench trial and awarded the plaintiff a judgment against both the owner of the pool and the affiliate real estate broker who requested the work. We have concluded that the evidence does not support the judgment against the property owner but affirm the judgment against the broker.

The appellant, Guy James Bonding, appeals the order of the Rutherford County Circuit Court denying its petition for reimbursement of a forfeited bail bond in the case of criminal defendant Valissa Granderson. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a hearing at which the trial court shall determine to what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled.

The petitioner, Charles Orlando Fields, was found guilty by a jury in the Obion County Circuit Court of one count of selling .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine within one thousand feet of a school zone. The petitioner was sentenced to thirty-three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that the petitioner’s claims were waived and that regardless of waiver, the petitioner failed to prove prejudice. The petitioner appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Dee W. Thompson, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of three counts of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court's rulings regarding the admissibility of prior testimony, and the qualification of a witness to testify as an expert. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This cause is a civil suit for damages against Gary and Cynthia Mann resulting from Cynthia Mann's embezzlement of funds totaling $550,000.00 from the law firm of Marks, Shell, and Maness. The trial court found Mr. and Mrs. Mann jointly and severably liable for the loss. Mr. Mann appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

This case involves the rights of a survivor in a joint bank account. During her lifetime, the decedent sold certain real property, put the proceeds in a separate bank account, and executed a will leaving half of the proceeds to her niece. The bank account in which the proceeds were deposited was a joint account between the decedent and her brother. The brother had power of attorney over the decedent's affairs and was the named executor in the her will. After the decedent died, the decedent's will was admitted to probate. The brother, as executor, filed a petition asking for instructions as to the proper disposition of the money in the joint bank account. The trial court held that, when the funds were placed in the joint bank account, the bequest to the niece was adeemed and the funds were no longer a part of the decedent's estate. Therefore, the trial court determined that the brother, as the joint account holder with a right of survivorship, was entitled to all of the proceeds. The named beneficiary now appeals. We reverse, concluding that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the bank account was a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship.

The Defendant, Michael Ward, II, was convicted by a jury of attempted second degree murder, aggravated spousal rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises five issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his five convictions; (2) whether double jeopardy bars multiple convictions that all require proof of the element of serious bodily injury; (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant's prior bad acts; (4) whether the Defendant was prejudiced by the State's failure to provide him with discovery items; and (5) whether the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based on the cumulative effect of the alleged trial errors. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Mandrall Porter, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After a review of the record, this court determines that petitioner's claims must fail. Petitioner has failed to present any evidence that his sentence has expired or that his conviction for especially aggravated robbery is void. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.