APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner pled guilty to three Class B felony drug offenses. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court orally sentenced the Petitioner to ten years for each conviction with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other and to a prior four-year sentence, resulting in an effective sentence of ten years. After the sentence was imposed, the Petitioner asked that he be allowed to begin serving his sentence the following day. The trial court granted the Petitioner's request, with the condition that if he did not report as ordered, two of the sentences would run consecutively. The next day, the Petitioner failed to report, and the trial court entered judgments in which two of the Petitioner's sentences were consecutive, resulting in an effective sentence of twenty years. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that his plea was unlawfully induced, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his sentences were illegal. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Concluding that the trial court violated Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and the Petitioner's due process rights, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant was convicted, along with her co-defendant husband, of child abuse and neglect, a Class D felony, and sentenced to four years probation. She appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and that any neglect that did occur was the result of mistakes in parenting skills, such mistake vitiating any knowing abuse. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, after being allowed to represent himself at the sentencing hearing, proceeds pro se in appealing his especially aggravated robbery conviction and sentence of twenty-two years imprisonment. The defendant argues his right to a speedy trial was violated and argues he was subject to an unreasonable delay in sentencing. The defendant argues the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to sever the offenses. The defendant argues the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to recuse himself and contends the trial court erroneously allowed a witness to testify to injuries she sustained as a result of the robbery. The defendant argues the trial court improperly ruled the defendant was not entitled to be present during jury deliberations. The defendant argues the trial court frustrated his right to appeal by relieving his trial counsel prior to sentencing. The defendant argues he is the victim of a malicious prosecution. We conclude the trial court did not err and evidence supports the defendant's conviction of especially aggravated robbery. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty years incarceration pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement setting the maximum amount of time to be served at twenty years. The defendant contends her sentence is excessive and the trial court misapplied enhancement factors (4), (5), (6), and (10). We agree the trial court misapplied two enhancement factors, but the record supports the imposition of a twenty-year sentence, which is the maximum allowed by her plea agreement and the "presumptive sentence" provided by statute. We affirm the judgments from the trial court.

Petitioner appeals the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief by the Giles County Circuit Court. She was originally convicted of premeditated first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. In this appeal, she contends the post-conviction court erred by finding she received the effective assistance of counsel and argues trial counsel was deficient in not filing a motion to suppress her confession. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Teron McKenley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He originally pled guilty to especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and theft over $1,000 and received an effective sentence of fifteen years. He contends the post-conviction court erred in disallowing the introduction of the victim's medical records at his post-conviction hearing and in failing to find that ineffective assistance of counsel led to an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Blount County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Anthony Pfahler, of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, violent offender to thirty-five years in the Department of Correction (DOC) for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years for the aggravated assault conviction to be served consecutively. In this delayed appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his especially aggravated robbery conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his attorney's motion to withdraw; and (3) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Bruce Marvin Vann, was convicted of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a six-year sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant presents five issues for review: (1) whether the indictment sufficiently described the offense of aggravated assault; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient; (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to act as thirteenth juror; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing prior convictions as impeachment evidence; and (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing to apply a mitigating circumstance. The judgment is affirmed.

After being indicted for the sale of a controlled substance, the defendant filed an Affidavit of Indigency to obtain a court-appointed lawyer. The State dismissed the drug charges against the defendant and later charged the defendant with aggravated perjury, a Class D felony, regarding his answers to the trial court considering his request for a court-appointed lawyer. He was found guilty and sentenced as a Range I standard offender to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with 180 days to serve and the balance on supervised probation. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict; (2) the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to go to trial without an attorney; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. This is a case of first impression in Tennessee regarding an aggravated perjury conviction for making false statements to the trial court when requesting a court-appointed lawyer. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction of aggravated perjury. We conclude the trial court did not err in requiring the defendant to go to trial without an attorney.