APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. Pursuant to an agreed plea entered in October 1992, the defendant pled nolo contendere to three counts of aggravated rape of his niece, one count of aggravated sexual battery of his niece, one count of aggravated rape of his daughter, and one count of aggravated sexual battery of his daughter for an effective 35-year sentence as a Range I standard offender. Both victims were under thirteen years of age. On appeal, the defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel rendering his plea unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Plaintiff, provider of a tax preparation service, sued defendants, a tax preparation service and individual former employees of plaintiff, for damages and injunctive relief resulting from procurement of breach of contract by defendant tax preparation service and for breach of noncompetition contracts by former employees. The trial court found that the plaintiff had no right to relief from the defendants and entered judgment for all defendants. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The defendant was convicted of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class B felony; possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class E felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, he filed a timely appeal to this court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions. We affirm the defendant's convictions. However, because the jury assessed, and the trial court imposed, a fine for possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance that exceeds the statutory maximum, we remand the case to the trial court for a new jury to be impaneled to assess an appropriate fine in Count 2 and for entry of a corrected judgment as to the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction in Count 3.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a standard Range I offender. In this appeal, he raises two issues. First, he maintains that a prior inconsistent statement was improperly used by the prosecution to impeach the testimony of a prosecution witness. Second, he claims the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument. We find neither of these alleged errors requires reversal of this case and thus we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was indicted for first degree murder and convicted by a Hamilton County jury of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. He was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a state witness regarding bias. After review, we affirm.

The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. He argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve his original sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 1996, the petitioner, Steven Murphy, was convicted of first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and theft over $1,000. He received a sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder, 25 years for especially aggravated robbery and four years for the theft. The trial court ordered the petitioner to serve his sentences consecutively, resulting in an effective sentence of life plus 29 years. Following a direct appeal to this Court the petitioner's convictions were affirmed, but his sentence for aggravated robbery was modified to 21 years. State v. Adrian Wilkerson and Steven Murphy, No. 01C01-9610-CR-00419 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 891, at *45 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville Aug. 26, 1998). The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on September 18, 2000. The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition on October 30, 2000, which alleged that his trial attorneys were ineffective thereby depriving him of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Following appointment of counsel and a hearing, the trial judge entered an order denying post-conviction relief on March 12, 2001, and the instant appeal followed. After a thorough review of the record we find no error in the trial court's decision. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

The Defendant, Michael E. Owenby, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury of theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to three years as a Range I standard offender, with ninety days to be served in confinement and the balance to be served in the Community Corrections program. He argues as his sole issue on appeal that there was not sufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction of theft. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment deleting the "day for day" requirement relating to the ninety days of confinement.

The defendant, Tracy Frank Leonard, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, rape, and theft over $1,000. The trial court merged the convictions for first degree premeditated murder and felony murder and also merged the convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping into a single conviction. The defendant received a life sentence for the first degree murder, twenty-five years for especially aggravated kidnapping, eight years for rape, and two years for theft over $1,000. The trial court ordered that the sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping and rape be served consecutively to the life sentence and consecutively to each other. The sentence for the theft is to be served concurrent with the sentence for rape. The effective sentence is, therefore, life plus thirty-three years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant alleges (1) that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of several witnesses; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and rape; (3) that the trial court erred by restricting his right to cross-examination of witnesses; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to grant a new trial based on the State's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence; (5) that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial; (6) that the trial erred in its instructions to the jury; (7) that the trial court misapplied certain enhancement factors to his sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping and rape; and (8) that the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors denied him the right to a fair trial. We affirm the convictions and judgments for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping where the victim suffers serious bodily injury, rape, and theft over $1,000. We conclude the sentences imposed were proper. The defendant's conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping accomplished by the use of a deadly weapon is reversed and remanded for a new trial because of the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to lesser-included offenses.

In this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief the appellant claims that his convictions for second degree murder and theft of property valued under $10,000 are constitutionally void or voidable because his presence in Tennessee to stand trial was secured by what he claims was a conspiracy on the part of the prosecution to deprive him of his rights under the Interstate Compact on Detainers, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-31-101. The appellant, who was originally charged in Tennessee with first degree murder which carries a possible punishment of death, was returned to Tennessee from the Alabama penal system by means of extradition documents and an executive agreement between the governors of Tennessee and Alabama. The appellant also claims that the post-conviction court should have issued subpoenas to certain law enforcement officials in Alabama in order to help him substantiate his claims of conspiracy in his transfer from Alabama to Tennessee, and in order to demonstrate his trial attorney's alleged ineffectiveness in litigating this conspiracy theory on direct appeal.

The Defendant, William C. Smith, pled guilty to burglary, a class D felony, and theft under $500, a class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the Defendant's plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I standard offender with the sentences to run concurrently. The parties left the length, method, and manner of service to the trial judge's discretion. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years in the Department of Correction for the burglary and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days at 75% for the misdemeanor theft. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.