APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Samuel David Land, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was convicted by a jury for felony evading arrest and driving on a revoked license, second offense, a misdemeanor. For his felony conviction, Petitioner was sentenced as a career offender to twelve years in confinement. Petitioner was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days for the misdemeanor conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutive to a six-year sentence that Petitioner was already serving as a result of a probation violation in a prior case. This Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions on direct appeal. State v. Land, 34 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief. Having reviewed the record on appeal, the applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Amy Jo Blankenship, entered pleas of guilty to counts of burglary, theft, and failure to appear. After the trial court imposed sentences on each guilty plea, the appellant filed a motion to set aside the judgments claiming that she was coerced into pleading guilty. She later filed a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f). The trial court denied both motions. This appeal follows. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant was found guilty of one count of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony, and sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in not appointing another attorney and requiring the defendant to proceed pro se at the motion hearing and trial after several attorneys were allowed to withdraw. We conclude that the defendant has failed to provide this Court with a record of all relevant court dealings. Therefore, we presume that the whole record justifies the trial court's decisions. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Plaintiffs’ insurer appeals award of benefits to Plaintiffs under Plaintiffs’ uninsured/underinsured motorist policy. We affirm.
 

In this divorce case the Appellant, Darrell C. Silvey, contends that the Trial Court erred in its allocation of property between himself and the Appellee, Judith Lynn Silvey. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court, affirm as modified and remand. Costs of this appeal are adjudged equally against Mr. and Ms. Silvey.

The Petitioner, Corey A. Kennerly, 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 fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Arnold Carter, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has not established a valid claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Robert Dennis Heisinger, was convicted by a jury of one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. He was sentenced as a Range II offender to an eight-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the length of his sentence and the failure of the trial court to grant him alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Yourl Lee Bass, Jr., appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction 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 fails to assert a colorable claim for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Steven T. Loach, 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 fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Gregory Lynn Hollingsworth, 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 fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the lower court’s denial of his post-conviction relief petition following his guilty plea to possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Appellant, Christopher Michael Schmidt, appeals the trial court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The only issue for this Court’s review is whether the trial court committed error by its order of transfer of the Appellant to the temporary custody of the State of Delaware. Finding no error committed by the trial court, this Court concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Aggrieved that the lower court denied post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner, Ricco Saine, appeals and claims that his aggravated burglary conviction resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Quincy Henderson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his post-conviction petition, in which he claimed that his second degree murder conviction was constitutionally infirm because of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendants, Thelisa Emery and Maurice Emery, sister and brother, were each convicted in a joint jury trial of possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Thelisa Emery claims that the convicting evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred in not severing the defendants’ trials, in allowing testimony about Thelisa Emery’s use of cocaine, in allowing evidence of her prior sale of cocaine, and in instructing the jury as to her guilt via criminal responsibility for the acts of Maurice Emery. Maurice Emery raised some of the same issues, but because he failed to file a timely motion for new trial, appellate review of his convictions is limited to the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no reversible error with respect to either defendant, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, James Stacy Carroll, appeals from his Carroll County Circuit Court conviction of driving a vehicle in violation of a motor vehicle habitual offender order. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and affirm the conviction.

The Petitioner, Thurman Pete Rolland, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his third petition for post conviction 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 had no authority to file a third petition for post-conviction relief, and the statute of limitations had expired. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Jacob Edward Campbell, of premeditated first degree murder, felony murder, and robbery, and the trial court merged the two murder convictions into a single offense of first degree murder. Thereafter, the jury sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for first degree murder, and the trial court imposed a ten-year sentence for the robbery conviction to be served consecutively to the defendant's life sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence crime scene photographs of the murder victim; (3) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence testimony regarding pills found on the defendant when he was arrested; (4) the trial court erred by allowing a State's witness to read to the jury a summary of the witness's pre-trial statement to police; (5) the trial court erred by denying the defendant's request to introduce a prior recorded statement of an unavailable witness to impeach a State's witness; (6) the trial court erred by not clarifying its jury charge that the jury could not consider evidence introduced at trial concerning the co-defendant; and (7) the trial court erred by ordering that the sentence for robbery run consecutively to the defendant's life sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to ten years as a standard offender. The defendant has filed a pro se appeal of right of his conviction, posing the following issues for our review: 1) Whether the evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to support the defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery; 2) Whether the State improperly withheld exculpatory and impeachment evidence; and 3) Whether the trial court failed to investigate a conflict of interest before appointing new counsel. After careful review, we affirm the conviction.

The Petitioner, Anthony D. McDaniel, 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 fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Landowners sued to abate a nuisance claiming that a concrete causeway, built over a creek by an adjoining landowner, caused water to flood their property. After hearing from one witness, the trial judge discouraged further proof and instead chose to visit the plaintiffs' land at the next flooding. He subsequently found the causeway to be a nuisance and ordered it removed. We reverse because trial court based its decision solely on the basis of the judge's personal observations.

The defendant, Sandy Marie McKay, pled guilty to attempted aggravated child neglect, a Class B felony. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. The defendant now appeals, contesting both the length and manner of service of her sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted review to determine whether the defendant credit life insurance company was estopped from relying on policy language which excluded coverage if an insured received medical treatment for and died from a disease within six months of the date of coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the credit life insurance company based on the policy exclusion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant was estopped from relying on the policy exclusion and ordering payment of the policy benefits to the plaintiff, widow of the insured. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendant and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the defendant was estopped from relying on the policy exclusion. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.