APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief concerning petitioner's conviction for aggravated kidnapping. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel, during the trial of the case, "opened the door" to the state's introduction of evidence of defendant's prior arrests. We agree with the post-conviction court's finding that petitioner failed to establish prejudice; thus, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Robert Spooner appeals from the Wayne County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The petition was filed in an effort to avoid Spooner's extradition to the state of Alabama, where he is charged with having violated his probation on a conviction of receiving stolen property. Because the lower court properly denied the petition, we affirm.

The Appellant, J.C. Bruce, was convicted after a trial by jury of robbery and, as a multiple offender, received a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Bruce raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and (2) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgment of the Humphreys County Circuit Court is affirmed.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Melissa D. Hayman, of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to six years each for the burglary and the assault convictions, and to twelve years as a Range I violent offender for the kidnapping. The six year sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the twelve year sentence and to each other, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. All of the Defendant's sentences were ordered to be served in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal the Defendant contends that the kidnapping conviction violates her constitutional rights under State v. Anthony, and further challenges the length and manner of service of her sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner was charged with one count of aggravated sexual battery; five counts of rape of a child; two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance; and six counts of the delivery of a controlled substance. The Petitioner subsequently pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance and to six counts of the delivery of a controlled substance. He also entered an Alford plea to three counts of attempted rape of a child. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of forty-eight years. The Petitioner subsequently filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief which was heard and denied by the trial court. In this post-conviction appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered his pleas; that his counsel's deficient performance rendered his guilty pleas unknowing and involuntary; and that he should be granted post-conviction relief because of newly discovered evidence. Concluding that the Petitioner received adequate representation when he entered his plea; that his pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently; and that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Kevin Shawn Taylor, pled guilty in the Warren County Circuit Court to one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. He received a sentence of ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner  filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Tyler Ward Enix, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court's revoking his probation that was ordered for his sentences for harassing and stalking his estranged wife. The defendant contends that although he violated his probation, the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 The Defendants, Joseph D. Combs and Evangeline Combs (husband and wife), were charged by presentment returned by a Sullivan County grand jury with numerous offenses: Joseph Combs was indicted for one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated perjury, one count of aggravated rape, and seven counts of rape. Evangeline Combs was indicted for one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts  of aggravated assault, two counts of assault, and four counts of aggravated child abuse. Following the close of all proof, the trial court dismissed one count of aggravated assault in the presentment against both Defendants and three counts (one for aggravated assault and two for simple assault) against Evangeline, finding the offenses in these four counts were barred by the statute of limitations.  Following deliberation, the jury found Defendant Evangeline Combs guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping and four counts of aggravated child abuse, and not guilty of one count of aggravated assault. Defendant Joseph Combs was found guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated perjury, and aggravated rape, in addition to seven counts of rape. Evangeline Combs received a sentence of 65 years, and Joseph Combs received an effective sentence of 114 years. The Defendants, represented by different counsel, filed separate notices of appeal. Thereafter, the two cases were consolidated to form the instant appeal which presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly conducted voir dire proceedings; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to amend the presentment for especially aggravated kidnapping; (3) whether the State properly complied with Defendants’ request for a bill of particulars regarding the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of prior bad acts; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendants’ convictions; (6) whether the trial court’s instructions to the jury included all appropriate lesser-included offenses; (7) whether the trial court failed to fully and properly instruct the jury concerning the especially aggravated kidnapping charge; (8) whether the trial court erred by failing  to merge the convictions for certain offenses; and (9) whether the sentences imposed on both Defendants were proper. Defendant Joseph Combs additionally presents the issue of whether seven of his  eight rape convictions should be reversed because the State failed to allege sufficient facts in the presentment to properly toll the statute of limitations for these offenses. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse Defendant Joseph Combs’ conviction for aggravated perjury and remand the matter for a new trial on that charge. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.

While I concur in the results reached by the majority, it is my view that the failure to charge the lesser included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping and false imprisonment on the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping and reckless endangerment and assault on the charge of aggravated assault was, in fact, error. The majority implies that but does not so assert. I also believe that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of those convictions. Most recently, in State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 189 (Tenn. 2002), our supreme court established that a contextual analysis of the entire record was necessary in order to determine whether the failure to charge a lesser included offense qualified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, the Allen ruling negates any implication in State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 106 (Tenn. 1998), that the failure to instruct on lesser included offenses will always be harmless when the jury returns a verdict two levels in excess of an omitted lesser included offense.

The Defendant, Nelson Keith Foster, pled guilty to and was convicted of violating a motor vehicle habitual offender order. The Defendant was subsequently sentenced to three years, to be served on probation. The Defendant appealed to this Court from the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See State v. Nelson Keith Foster, No. E2001-01259-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 172 (Knoxville, Mar. 7, 2002). Pending the Defendant's appeal, he twice violated the terms of his probation. Still pending the outcome of the Defendant's appeal, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. The Defendant now appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation. We reverse the trial court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and remand this matter for further proceedings.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to a term of six years incarceration and the jury assessed a $10,000 fine. On appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping. On appeal, defendant (1) asserts that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors to the sentences and (2) asserts that the imposition of consecutive sentences was improper. After reviewing the sentence de novo, we conclude that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant. We reverse and remand for resentencing.