APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant pled guilty to three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of solicitation of a minor, four counts of indecent exposure, and possession of a dangerous weapon. He agreed to an effective five-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Nadia Coffer, appeals the lower court’s denial of her post-conviction relief petition. The petitioner originally entered guilty pleas in the Shelby County Criminal Court to especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted first degree murder and received two concurrent fifteen-year sentences, the minimum sentences for these Class A felonies. On appeal, the petitioner contends her pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The jury convicted the defendant of especially aggravated robbery and theft over $10,000. The trial court imposed consecutive twenty-five-year and ten-year sentences, respectively. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for especially aggravated robbery; (2) the trial court erred in not allowing him to move from the defense table to view evidence on a monitor; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Eslie L. Morgan, of attempted voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced him to eight years in confinement as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to ask the victim an improper question during redirect examination. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, fourth offense, and violation of the implied consent law. He contends on appeal that (1) there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop and (2) the evidence was insufficient because the officer used a non-standardized test. Crossing the yellow line on several occasions and almost hitting a trooper provided sufficient probable cause for the stop, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Tim Holt, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Hancock County Criminal Court for first degree, premeditated murder. The defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erroneously allowed the defendant's wife to testify, violating his privilege regarding marital communications, (3) the trial court erroneously allowed prejudicial exhibits to be entered into evidence, and (4) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on second degree murder. We affirm the trial court.

I concur in the result reached and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. However, I do not believe that we should rely on T.C.A. § 40-18-110 to bar relief in this case relative to a jury instruction for the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. The state has not raised the statute to bar the defendant’s jury instruction claim, and, obviously, the defendant has not had an opportunity to address the validity of the statute. In this respect, I believe that legitimate questions exist about the constitutionality of, at least, part of T.C.A. § 40-18-110 but that this case is not the one to answer those questions. The fact that no harm could flow to the defendant under the circumstances in this case is sufficient, by itself, to warrant affirming the judgments of conviction. Therefore, I concur in the majority opinion.

The petitioner, Dennis Gilliland, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 1996 felony murder conviction. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the issue of alibi. He also raises ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not request an alibi instruction, requested the dismissal of the premeditated murder count instead of the felony murder count after the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts, and did not raise relevant arguments about the jury seeing the petitioner in handcuffs. Last, the petitioner claims that he was denied the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because the jury was allowed to hear evidence that he had been involved in two other, recent shooting deaths. We affirm the denial of the post-conviction petition.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. He argues the post-conviction court erred in determining he received the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Larry S. Reese, was found guilty of aggravated assault based, in part, on the violation of a protective order obtained by the victim, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(c), and public intoxication, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-310. Upon finding that the order of protection had not been served on the defendant prior to the assault, the trial court modified the aggravated assault conviction to simple assault and ordered a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. In this appeal, the state asserts that the trial court erred by reducing the defendant’s conviction to simple assault. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.