APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Shun D. Jones, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of rape and was sentenced to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ronald W. Rice, filed in the Morgan County Criminal Court ("the habeas court") for habeas corpus relief, alleging that he received an illegal sentence for his conviction for an aggravated rape which occurred in 1983. The habeas court granted the petitioner relief. On appeal, the State contends that the habeas court erred in finding that the petitioner was entitled to relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the Morgan County Criminal Court, reinstate the petitioner's aggravated rape conviction, and remand to the Williamson County Criminal Court ("the convicting court") for correction of the judgment of conviction.

A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to the following: "11 months, 29 days suspended after 6 months day for day (11 months, 29 days suspended probation after the 6 months)." The trial court also revoked the Defendant's driver's license for two years, ordered the Defendant to pay a $610 fine, and ordered the Defendant to avoid alcohol throughout the probation period. In addition, the trial court imposed twenty days of community service to be completed within one year. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: 1) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of a breathalyser test, 2) that the trial court erred by limiting the testimony of the Defendant's accident re-construction expert's testimony about the Tennessee Department of Transportation's statistics regarding traffic accidents that occurred at the intersection in question, and 3) that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing the Defendant to a sentence in excess of the maximum sentence available by statute for a DUI second offense. Finding no reversible error as concerns the conviction, we affirm the conviction. We vacate the sentence and remand for entry of an amended judgment.

In a series of steps designed to challenge his 1981 convictions for armed robbery and aggravated rape, Petitioner, Barry Winfred Ritchie, filed various pro se motions including (1) a motion for post-conviction relief and/or writ of error coram nobis, (2) a motion for relief of judgment pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, (3) a petition for common law writ of certiorari, and (4) a motion to quash the indictments and correct an illegal sentence. All pleadings are predicated on the same allegation that the Hamilton County Criminal Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try and convict Petitioner of the charged offenses. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant pled guilty to felony failure to appear. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a one-year sentence with ninety days of incarceration followed by probation. The defendant appeals the denial of full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment.

The defendant, Kevin Scott Olmstead, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed two consecutive five-year sentences. On appeal, the defendant contends his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief after his second degree murder conviction and argues his trial counsel (1) deprived him of his right to testify, and (2) failed to effectively represent him at trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Bobby Holt, Jr., pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, four counts of burglary, three counts of theft over $1000, and one count of theft under $500. The trial court imposed sentences of five years for aggravated burglary, three years on each count of burglary, three years on each count of theft over $1000, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for theft under $500. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, for an effective, Range I sentence of five years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that (1) the trial court erred in the application of enhancement and mitigating factors and (2) that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.