APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Roger L. Smith, pled guilty to three counts of child rape in 1998. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief and for DNA testing. The trial court summarily dismissed the post-conviction petition on the grounds that it is time-barred. The trial court further summarily denied the Defendant's request for DNA testing. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Defendant's claim for post-conviction relief, but reverse and remand for further proceedings the trial court's dismissal of the Defendant's request for DNA testing.

In a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to the sale of under .5 grams of cocaine and agreed to a seven-year sentence. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined at a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the entire sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction, because the defendant had not demonstrated the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. We find no error in the sentence and, therefore, affirm.

The Defendant, Joel Anthony Davenport, pled guilty to multiple counts of passing worthless checks and was sentenced to probation. The Defendant's probation was violated and revoked. Upon revocation, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that he was sentenced to four years of incarceration, plus an additional year for the count which violated his probation, to be served consecutively to a six year sentence in another county. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that his sentence was to total eleven years. The Tennessee Department of Corrections report showed that the Defendant was sentenced to fourteen years, not eleven, and the Defendant filed a motion with the trial court to enter an order correcting the "clerical mistake." The trial court denied that motion and the Defendant appeals. Finding no error in the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion, we affirm.

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The defendant entered pleas of guilt to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, and possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed concurrent Range I sentences of eight years, two years, and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. The defendant was required to serve one year in jail followed by seven years in community corrections. Later, the community corrections sentence was revoked and an eight-year sentence imposed. An appeal resulted in a remand by this court with directions to credit both jail time and the length of service within the program. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in the imposition of the resentence. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pled guilty to one count of delivering a Schedule II controlled substance (Hydromorphone). He was sentenced to 50 months to be served with Corrections Management Corporation, a community-based alternative, after service of 180 days in the county jail. The defendant appealed the sentence, contending that it was excessive. We hold that the trial court properly rejected mitigating factor one because drug dealing inherently involves the risk of bodily injury and that the defendant’s prior criminal behavior justified the sentence imposed. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.