APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

On December 6, 1996, the petitioner was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated kidnaping. On direct appeal, those convictions were affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on May 10, 1999. On June 21, 2001, the petitioner filed, pro se, a document titled "motion for extraordinary relief." The trial court dismissed the motion, characterizing it as a petition for post-conviction relief, and barred by the one-year statute of limitations. We affirm the dismissal from the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief from her conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that she received effective assistance of trial counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner failed to demonstrate either a deficiency in counsel's performance or a resulting prejudice to her case. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The petitioner, Jonathan Thornton, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the sentence imposed by this court on direct appeal is illegal. Because the sentence imposed by this court upon direct appeal is in direct contravention of a statute, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the petitioner's sentence is modified. With regard to the petitioner's felony conviction, we modify the sentence to a term of split confinement, with 7.2 months to be served in the local jail and the balance to be served on probation. The sentence for the misdemeanor sentence remains the same, 11 months and 29 days with thirty percent to be served in confinement.

The defendant, Joseph B. Thompson, was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of twenty years for each offense for an effective sentence of forty years. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) that his convictions for both aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping violate the rule established in State v. Anthony; (3) that a pretrial photographic array was unduly suggestive; (4) that the trial court erred by the admission of photographs of the victim; (5) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial; (6) that the offenses should have been severed for trial; (7) that the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the indictment when the state failed to disclose exculpatory information; (8) that the trial court erred by admitting a receipt that was not properly authenticated; (9) that the trial court impermissibly limited closing argument to forty minutes; and (10) that the sentence is excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, Michael Anthony Scruggs, pled guilty to forgery and theft under $500. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of six years for the forgery and eleven months, twenty-nine days, for the theft. No appeal was taken. Later, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that his appointed counsel fell below the required level of competency. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The defendant appeals his effective ten-year community corrections sentence with a requirement of 160 days of jail time after pleading guilty to violating a habitual motor vehicle offender order, driving under the influence - 4th offense, and resisting arrest. The defendant filed no transcripts of the guilty plea submission hearing or sentencing hearing. These hearings are essential for appellate review. Therefore, we must presume that the trial court is correct. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Sharon R. Hurt, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twenty-four years. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences. State v. James Murray, Marcie Murray and Sharon R. Hurt, No. 01C01-9702-CR-00066, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1323, 1998 WL 934578 (Tenn. Crim. App., filed at Nashville, Dec. 30, 1998), perm. to app. denied (Tenn., June 28, 1999). On September 4, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, in which she alleged the existence of new scientific evidence establishing her actual innocence. The State sought to dismiss the petition. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to show the existence of new scientific evidence, and the petition was therefore barred by the statute of limitations. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction, with the sentence to be suspended and the defendant placed on probation after one year in the county workhouse. She raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering that she serve one year of her sentence in the county workhouse. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On August 27, 2001, pursuant to a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Tipton County found the defendant, Raymond N. Wallace, guilty of driving under the influence, second offense. For this offense, he received an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine (29) days, suspended on the service of forty-five (45) days. The court fined the defendant $600.00 and suspended his license to drive for two years. The defendant contends that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support the conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating beverages. After a thorough review of the record before this Court, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.