APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Byron Looper, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He timely appealed, presenting as issues: (1) the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of witnesses who would have testified as to his location following the homicide, violating his right to due process; (2) the trial court erred in keeping under seal the psychological records of one of the State's witnesses; and (3) the evidence did not support application of the aggravating factor that the homicide was committed because the victim was a state official. Following our review, we affirm the conviction and the imposition of life without the possibility of parole.

Department of Children’s Services filed petition to terminate parental rights of mother of abused, dependent and neglected minor child. Department’s termination petition was based on allegations of abandonment, mother’s failure to substantially comply with a permanency plan, the removal of the child for at least six months with little likelihood that the conditions causing removal would be remedied, and the best interests of the child. Juvenile Court granted petition terminating mother’s parental rights. Mother appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed and Remanded
 

The Defendant was indicted for aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and  theft of property valued over $500. The Defendant pled guilty to facilitation of aggravated rape and to aggravated robbery.  Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven years for facilitation of aggravated rape and to eleven years for aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court ordered that the two sentences run concurrently. However, the trial court ordered that the sentences run consecutively to prior sentences in Humphreys and Dickson Counties. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Frankie Donald Releford, appeals his effective eight-year sentence of incarceration. The Sullivan County Criminal Court sentenced him to confinement following his guilty pleas to possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine for resale, a Class B felony; possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, a Class E felony; possession of dihydrocodeinone, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and theft of property valued under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant contests the manner of service of his sentences, contending that the trial court erroneously denied him probation or an alternative sentence. We affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court.

The Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell; reckless driving; two counts of driving with a suspended, cancelled, or revoked license; possession of cocaine; aggravated assault; and felony evading arrest. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years and ordered him to serve his sentence on probation. The Defendant's probation officer subsequently filed a probation violation report, and following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly relied on rebuttal testimony as substantive evidence at the hearing and thus that the court improperly revoked his probation. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm the trial court's decision to revoke probation in this case.

The defendant, Chad Crabtree, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, Class A felonies. The trial court imposed concurrent twenty-five-year sentences. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by denying his access to certain records regarding the victim and the lead investigator; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support one of his convictions; (3) that the trial court was not impartial; (4) that a witness for the state improperly bolstered the credibility of the victim; and (5) that the sentence was excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The defendant pled guilty to violating a habitual traffic offender order and to a second offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Pursuant to his plea agreement the defendant received a sentence of three years as a multiple offender for violating the habitual traffic offender order and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second offense of driving under the influence. The trial court ordered these sentences to run concurrently. At the conclusion of a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for probation or any other form of alternative sentencing. Through the instant appeal the defendant challenges this denial. After reviewing the facts and relevant caselaw, we find the denial appropriate concerning the violation of the habitual traffic offender judgment and, therefore, affirm the trial court's determination in this regard. We also affirm the denial of alternative sentencing with respect to the defendant's second offense of driving under the influence. However, because of a conflict between the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the judgment, we remand this case for correction of the judgment.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Reginol L. Waters, of two counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to twenty-three years for the first count of aggravated rape, twenty-five years for the second count of aggravated rape, ten years for aggravated robbery, and as a Range II offender to ten years for aggravated burglary. The trial court further ordered the two sentences for aggravated rape and the sentence for aggravated burglary be served consecutively and the sentence for aggravated robbery be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of fifty-eight years. In this appeal of right, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress testimony regarding the "showup" identification of the defendant; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the defendant's statements to the police; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the tape recording of the victim's telephone call to the police; (4) whether the state failed to establish a proper chain of custody for evidence found during a search of the defendant's vehicle; (5) whether the two convictions for aggravated rape should be merged; (6) whether the conviction for aggravated burglary violates due process because it was incidental to the offenses of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery; and (7) whether the sentences are excessive. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.