APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Ivan E. Cummings, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, and second degree murder, Class A felonies. The trial court merged the aggravated child abuse and neglect convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. For the second degree murder conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years to be served concurrently with the twenty-four-year sentence. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erroneously applied enhancement factors to his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Harold J. Turner, was convicted of driving under the influence ("DUI") and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county workhouse, with all but seven days suspended and the balance to be served on probation. In addition, his driver's license was revoked for one year and he was ordered to attend alcohol safety school and pay a fine of $500. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider whether he was guilty of driving while impaired without first having to determine that he was not guilty of DUI. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of facilitation of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary for his participation with a codefendant in robbing a resident of a Springfield motel and burglarizing his room. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of six years. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, he filed a timely appeal to this court, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly denied his motion for a new trial based on his claim of an improper closing by the State; and (2) whether the trial court properly denied his request for a jury instruction on accessory after the fact. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Eddie L. Coley, Jr., was convicted of aggravated robbery in 1996 and sentenced to confinement for twelve years. Following an unsuccessful appeal of his conviction, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a photographic lineup and not allowing him to testify at his trial. The post-conviction court denied the petition; and, following our review, we affirm that denial.

The defendant, Antonio Mitchell, appeals his Shelby County jury conviction of attempted first-degree murder and claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. We disagree and affirm.

We granted this appeal to determine the propriety of the trial judge’s actions in the adjudication of these workers’ compensation cases. We hold that the trial judge failed to perform all the duties of the judge’s office prescribed by law in these consolidated cases by improperly delegating his authority to the clerk and master to adjudicate the cases. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the cases are remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Trial Court Reversed;

 

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 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 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.

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 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.

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, 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.