APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The trial court found the defendant, Tim Mattingly, violated the terms of his ten-year community corrections sentence. It ordered him to serve three years "day for day" in the county jail before serving the remainder of his ten-year sentence on community corrections. In this appeal, the defendant argues the trial court acted without authority in imposing this sentence. We conclude the trial court imposed an illegal sentence and remand for further proceedings.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(a) requires that the State notify the defendant of its intent to seek enhanced punishment. We accepted this cause in order to decide whether the State complied with this statutory mandate. The trial court ruled that the State's response to the defendant's discovery request met the statutory requirement and therefore, permitted the State to seek enhanced punishment outside of Range I. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On consideration, we conclude that the State did not meet the notice requirement. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The petitioner, Rodrick Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that: (1) the post-conviction court erred by failing to make findings and conclusions as to each issue; (2) the jury instructions provided by the trial court lowered the State's burden of proof; (3) the trial court erred in not instructing as to the lesser-included offense of facilitation; and (4) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition.

A Carroll County jury convicted the Defendant of manufacturing the controlled substance methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a standard offender to four years and six months of incarceration. The Defendant now appeals, contending the following: (1) that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the conviction; and (2) that the jury’s indication on the special verdict form showed its confusion with regard to the trial court’s instructions rendering the  verdict unsustainable or, in the alternative, constituting “plain error.”  Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals his conviction of rape and his ten-year sentence. The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erroneously allowed the victim to testify, and that expert testimony should not have been admitted into evidence. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in sentencing. After careful review, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and the trial court did not err. We affirm the conviction and the judgment of the trial court.

After the death of their elderly mother, her sons discovered that the decedent's stepson and his wife had used a power of attorney to transfer the funds from the decedent's $20,000 CD to themselves. The decedent's son filed a petition to have the money restored to her estate. The trial court held that the CD was a valid inter vivos gift from the decedent. We reverse, because there is no evidence in the record that such a gift was ever made.

The defendant appeals her sentence of four years for voluntary manslaughter. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her any form of alternative sentencing. We conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Charles W. Cole, pled guilty on February 4, 2000, to five sexual offenses and, in January 2001, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the dismissal of the petition

The Appellant, Andrew Cole, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Gibson County Circuit Court. Cole is currently incarcerated as a result of his jury convictions for attempted first degree murder, attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Cole raises the issues of: (1) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint “new counsel” for him at trial; and (3) whether he was improperly sentenced as a multiple offender. After review of the issues, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The petitioner, Redonna Hanna, was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of especially aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of first degree murder. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by not objecting to the trial court's instructions as to criminal responsibility. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm the dismissal.

The appellant, Valerie Arlene Bullion, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to operating a motor vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act, a Class E felony; driving under the influence, tenth offense, a Class E felony; driving on a revoked license, fourth offense, a Class A misdemeanor; and violation of the implied consent law. The trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspended the appellant's driver's license for ten years, and imposed a three thousand dollar ($3000) fine. On appeal, the appellant complains that the sentences imposed by the trial court are excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Voss Johnson, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated robbery, one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and one count of second degree murder. Defendant now appeals his convictions arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for second degree murder based on a theory of criminal responsibility. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.