APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Clayton Eugene Turner, brings this appeal from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, incest, and assault. He argues two issues in this appeal: (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, and (2) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's post-conviction request for the appointment of experts in the fields of DNA analysis and the transmission of infectious diseases. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Natasha W. Cornett, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issues presented for our review are (1) whether the petitioner properly waived her right to a jury trial at sentencing; (2) whether her guilty pleas to three counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of theft over $1,000 were knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (3) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, Jonathan Thornton, was convicted of one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000 and one count of theft of property valued at less than $500. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two years and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, and (3) that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. Because the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence, the defendant's sentence is modified to a sentence of split confinement with nine months to be served in confinement and the balance to be served on probation.

The appellant, Christopher Robert Smith, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Davidson County of conspiracy to possess with the intent to manufacture, deliver or sell 300 grams or more of any substance containing cocaine, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fifty thousand dollar ($50,000) fine. On appeal, the appellant complains that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence was excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury found the defendants, Marthias S. Phillips and Lanard Keith Armstrong, guilty of facilitation of first-degree murder, criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated kidnapping, and criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced both defendants to serve 4-year sentences for their criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, 4-year sentences for their criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated robbery convictions, and 20-year sentences for their facilitation of first-degree murder convictions. The trial court sentenced both defendants as Range I offenders and ordered them to serve their 4-year sentences for criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated kidnapping concurrently to their 20-year sentences for facilitation of first-degree murder. The court then ordered them to serve their 4-year sentences for criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated robbery consecutively to their concurrent 20-year sentences, resulting in an effective sentence of 24 years. The defendants now bring the instant appeal. Defendant Armstrong and Defendant Phillips both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, the propriety of the trial court's jury instructions, and the effectiveness of their trial counsel. Defendant Armstrong additionally challenges the propriety of his sentence. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that none of these allegations merit relief.

The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for one count of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine for resale, a Class B felony, and for one count of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine and marijuana obtained during his arrest, alleging that the search of his car was unconstitutional. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of the charged offenses. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the cocaine and marijuana obtained pursuant to his arrest. Concluding that the search of the defendant's car was constitutional, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Cornelius Devon Hicks, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humboldt Law Court enlarging his community corrections sentence following revocation. Hicks argues on appeal that it was error to increase his sentence from eight to ten years, when no proof was introduced at the revocation hearing supporting an increased sentence and the trial court made no findings to justify the ten-year sentence. After review, we agree. Accordingly, the trial court's re-sentencing order is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

The appellant, Alan Parrigan, was convicted of the offense of aggravated sexual battery. He received a sentence of ten years incarceration to be served consecutively to a sentence he was serving at the time of the commission of the instant offense. On appeal he raises three errors for our consideration. First, the appellant maintains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of child abuse and neglect. Second, he alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Finally, the appellant contends consecutive sentencing is unwarranted in his case. After a thorough review of the record, we find that although the failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of child abuse and neglect was error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and that consecutive sentencing is fully supported by the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.