APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Rolando Rosas Contreras, was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated assault. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-five years for each of the three rape convictions, and he was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to six years for each of the two convictions for aggravated assault. The trial court ordered all sentences to be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by sentencing him to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. We affirm the convictions and modify the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The defendant, Gregory Pierce, pled guilty to attempted rape of a child, and the trial court accordingly sentenced him to serve eight years as a Range I standard offender for that conviction. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for alternative sentencing based upon the defendant's pre-sentence report, which includes a risk assessment evaluation outlining the defendant's potential to re-offend. The defendant now appeals the trial court's denial of his alternative sentencing request, arguing that the denial was improperly based on his polygraph results. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court acted properly and accordingly affirm the defendant's sentence.

John A. Carter, Sr., was tried and acquitted of second-degree murder in the Davidson County Criminal Court for the stabbing death of Simon Doig; he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a mid-range, three-year sentence. Carter claims in this appeal that the court should have given him a minimum, two-year sentence. Because we find no error in the trial court's sentencing pronouncement, we affirm.

A Robertson County jury convicted the Appellant, Tim D. Gardner, of possession of over 300 grams of cocaine, with intent to sell, a class A felony. Gardner raises one issue for our review: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. After review, we conclude that the proof is sufficient. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant, Terry Lynn Carter, appeals her conviction in the Hardeman County Circuit Court for aggravated assault. Defendant was sentenced, as a Range II multiple offender, to serve nine years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that the trial court erred by allowing the assistant district attorney to make improper comments at trial; and that the prosecuting attorney failed to provide defense counsel prior to trial with a copy of a letter that Defendant wrote to the victim. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the letter into evidence because the State violated its discovery obligation to Defendant. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

A Rhea County jury convicted the Defendant of first offense DUI, and the trial court sentenced her to forty-eight hours' confinement. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that insufficient evidence was presented to support her conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by denying her challenge to one of the jurors during voir dire; (3) that the trial court erred by denying her pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictments; (4) that the trial court erred by allowing the arresting officer to testify as to the contents of an alcoholic beverage; and (5) that her constitutional rights were violated when the State failed to provide her with a "legible" copy of a videotape taken of her at jail following her arrest. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant's conviction and that the trial court erred by allowing the arresting officer to testify as to the contents of an alcoholic beverage, but that the error was harmless. We further conclude that the Defendant has waived all other issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Joshua Aaron Roush, appeals the sentencing decision of the Knox County Criminal Court. Roush pled guilty to attempted second degree murder and, following a hearing, was sentenced as a Range I offender to a term of eleven years in the Department of Correction. Roush appeals, asserting that his sentence was excessive because the trial court failed to comply with relevant sentencing principles and erred in not applying six mitigating factors. After a review of the record, we find that Roush's issue is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

On September 20, 1999, the Defendant pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1000 and to attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years for the theft conviction and to six years for the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court suspended both sentences and placed the Defendant on six years' probation. On June 24, 2001, the Defendant was arrested for theft of property valued over $500. Based on the arrest, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by revoking her probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Sybil Baker, was convicted by a Franklin County jury of one count of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage. The trial court properly merged the convictions for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment and imposed a sentence of five years to be served in community corrections. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the convictions of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, or leaving the scene of an accident. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the appellant's convictions and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.