APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant entered a best interest guilty plea to aggravated burglary for an agreed sentence of three years as a Range I standard offender, with the potential for alternative sentencing left to the discretion of the trial court, and a misdemeanor theft count was dismissed. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the defendant filed a motion to set aside his plea pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(f), claiming he unknowingly entered it. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded the plea was knowingly entered and denied the defendant's request for alternative sentencing. In this appeal, the defendant claims the trial court erred (1) by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and (2) by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendants, Matthew DeLoss Larsen and Andrew Lee Matthews, were indicted for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. Pursuant to negotiated plea agreements, the defendants pled guilty
to robbery, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401, and aggravated assault, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102, both Class C felonies. The defendants also agreed to serve consecutive sentences, with the manner of service and length of their sentences to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed five-year sentences for each felony conviction and denied any form of alternative sentencing, which resulted in effective sentences of ten years confinement for both defendants. In this appeal, Larsen and Matthews separately challenge their sentences on similar grounds, essentially alleging that the trial court erred by (1) finding no mitigating factors were applicable in their respective cases, and (2) denying both defendants any form of alternative sentencing. Our de novo review reveals that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors. After a thorough review of applicable law and all relevant facts and circumstances in the record, we modify the trial court’s sentencing determination concerning the length of the defendants’ sentence for aggravated assault and affirm all other aspects of the judgment of the trial court.

After a trial, Defendant, Martin Stuart Hammock, was found guilty by a Davidson County jury of murder first degree. In accordance with the jury's verdict, the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with parole. Also accused of murder first degree was a co-Defendant, Brent Rollins, with Angela Watson being indicted for Accessory After the Fact to murder first degree. The co-Defendants were severed prior to trial. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying introduction of testimony from the victim's neighbor, David Thompson, regarding the victim's past violent behavior; and (2) the verdict was contrary to the evidence and law in that the proof was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty. After reviewing the record, we reverse, modify and remand the trial court's judgment.

The defendant, Cayle Wayne Harris, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child. The jury assessed a fine of $50,000 for each count and the trial court imposed sentences of twenty-one years for each offense, two terms to be served concurrently and one to be served consecutively. The effective sentence is, therefore, forty-two years. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient. The judgments are affirmed.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant of theft over $60,000, a Class B felony. The defendant contends in this appeal that (1) the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a state's witness who heard the victim's testimony despite the trial court's order to sequester witnesses; and (2) the trial court erred in not giving an enhanced unanimity instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Dennis Harry Johnson, pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court imposed a sentence of one year and six months on each count, to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of three years. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing and by ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. The judgments are affirmed.

The Defendant, Jerry W. Jordan, was convicted of second degree murder in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to twenty-two years of imprisonment. In his appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the Defendant’s Due Process and Equal Protection rights were violated when the State excluded four African-American jurors, (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense, and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to twenty-two years.  We reverse the Defendant’s second degree murder conviction due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense to first degree murder.

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except for the failure to charge the lesser included offense. Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the failure to charge reckless homicide was error, I would find the failure to charge the lesser offense harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, Timothy Clark Newson, appeals from his conviction for aggravated kidnapping, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Following a trial, a Hamilton County jury convicted the defendant of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) his sentence was excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant of misdemeanor theft of property, and the trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days of incarceration. The judgment of the trial court specified that the Defendant must serve seventy-five percent of the sentence prior to eligibility for work release, furlough, trusty status, and rehabilitative programs. The Defendant now appeals, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence that was imposed. Finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was properly imposed, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.