APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr. appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in his conviction proceedings, which ultimately caused him to plead guilty rather than take his case to trial. Gagne is serving an effective term of two consecutive life sentences consecutively to a prior twelve-year sentence. His petition involves his convictions upon guilty pleas for crimes of larceny, theft, aggravated burglary and two counts of felony murder. Following an evidentiary hearing, the lower court ruled that Gagne failed to establish his ineffective assistance claim. We hold that he has failed to demonstrate the error of that ruling, and we therefore affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.

The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition wherein he attacks the validity of a probation revocation proceeding. After a review of the record we affirm the decision of the trial court.

In this felony drug possession case, the state appeals from the trial court's order suppressing as evidence all items, including marijuana, seized during a search of the defendants' home. It contends that the trial court erred in determining that the affidavit for the search warrant did not establish probable cause to warrant a search. Based upon the record before us, we are constrained to affirm the trial court.

The defendant, John Waymann Orr, appeals from his probation revocation which resulted primarily from his conviction for public intoxication and alcohol abuse. He contends that with his alcohol abuse and mental health problems, he should be receiving treatment and should not be confined in jail. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant was convicted upon his guilty pleas to three counts of unlawfully photographing individuals in violation of their privacy, a Class A misdemeanor, and received concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentences to be served in confinement in the county jail. The defendant appeals the trial court's denying him probation of any type. We affirm the denial of probation, but we remand the case for entry of corrected judgments.

The petitioner, Tracy Lamar Belle, Sr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief contending that his right to due process has been violated by the application of the statute of limitations. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and because "the interest of justice" does not require the waiver of a timely notice, this appeal is dismissed. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a).

The defendant, Larry D. Upshaw, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of 38 years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Jeremy Michael Shelton, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000. The trial court imposed a three-year sentence. One year is to be served in continuous confinement and the remaining two years are to be served in Community Corrections. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient and that the sentence is excessive. The conviction is affirmed. The judgment is modified, however, to reflect that the confinement portion of the split sentence is to be served in the local jail.

The defendant, Anthony Reid, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, Class A felonies, aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and evading arrest, a Class E felony. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for his first degree murder conviction, twenty-five years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction, ten years for his aggravated robbery conviction, six years for his attempted aggravated robbery conviction, and two years for evading arrest. The trial court further ordered Defendant's sentence for life imprisonment to be served consecutively to his other four sentences, which were ordered to be served concurrently with each other, for an effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant contends that his convictions cannot stand because the State failed to comply with the mandatory procedures concerning proper presentation and filing of the indictment in his case as required by statute, and the trial court erred by refusing Defendant's request for a mistrial after the State improperly solicited testimony concerning the fact that Defendant invoked his right to remain silent upon arrest. Defendant also alleges that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity on two counts of second degree murder pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-210, and on one count of aggravated arson pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-302. After the court found the appellant not guilty by reason of insanity, the appellant was committed to Western Mental Health Institute for diagnosis and evaluation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303. At the conclusion of the appellant's diagnosis and evaluation, the doctors conducting the evaluation determined that the appellant was not committable under the Tennessee Code Annotated and refused to sign certificates of certification for the appellant to be involuntarily committed. At the end of the initial sixty (60) day diagnosis and evaluation period, the doctors at Western Mental Health Institute sought to have the appellant released into a mandatory outpatient treatment program. A hearing was conducted after the ninety (90) day mandatory release date, and the trial court ordered that the appellant be returned to Western Mental Health Institute. The appellant brought this appeal asserting that the trial court erred in ordering her continued detention after the expiration of the maximum ninety (90) day commitment period, and that such detention violates her rights. The state in its brief concedes error. After a thorough review of the issue presented in this case, we agree with the appellant and the state that the trial court erred. This case is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with the instruction set forth herein.

The defendant was indicted for attempted especially aggravated robbery, and a Shelby County jury subsequently convicted the defendant as charged. In this appeal, the defendant alleges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm the conviction.

A Fayette County jury convicted the defendant of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to the maximum term of 15 years as a Range III persistent offender. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Augusto Oviedo, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of robbery and was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) whether the trial court failed to fully consider all mitigating factors when it sentenced the appellant to the maximum in the range for the crime. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. The defendant was sentenced to a fifteen-year sentence at the Tennessee Department of Correction as a Range II offender. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at the defendant’s trial was sufficient to support his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

After trial, a Putnam County jury found Defendant guilty of the unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine over .5 grams, for resale, driving under the influence of an intoxicant, the unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and evading arrest. Further, the jury determined Defendant should pay fines of $100,000, $2,500, $2,500, and $1,500 for each respective offense. Subject to a sentencing agreement, the trial court imposed a sentence of nine (9) years on the cocaine offense and 11 months and 29 days for each misdemeanor. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently and imposed judgment for the fines in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Defendant presents two appellate issues: (1) Whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of sale of cocaine over 0.5 grams, driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia?; and (2) Whether Defendant's fines are excessive? After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment

The defendant appeals from his Sullivan County Criminal Court conviction and sentence for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and 29 days, with a six-month period of confinement, 45 days of which had to be served in continuous confinement. After the six-month confinement period, the defendant would serve the balance of the sentence on supervised probation. The trial court approved a $1,200 fine recommended by the jury. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court committed reversible error in the guilt phase by allowing the jury to be informed that the defendant previously had been convicted of DUI, and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a conforming judgment.

A Cocke County grand jury indicted the petitioner on four counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. On November 28, 1994, the petitioner pled guilty to all six counts. Following a sentencing hearing, he received twelve years on each aggravated robbery and six years on each aggravated assault. The trial court then ran some of the sentences consecutively resulting in an effective sentence of thirty years as a Range I, standard offender. On direct appeal this Court modified the sentence to twenty-four years. State v. Gregory Scott Caudill, No. 03C01-9510-CC-00338, 1997 WL 7009 at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, January 9, 1997). The petitioner's application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court was denied. Thereafter, he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging errors made with regard to his plea. Counsel was appointed to assist him; an amended petition was filed; and the trial court conducted a hearing thereon. At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. Through this appeal the petitioner avers that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in taking his plea. More particularly, he alleges that the trial court did not advise him of the mandatory minimum and maximum penalties that he could potentially receive. After reviewing the record, we find that the petitioner's specific claim lacks merit. However, through its brief the State observes that constitutionally mandated advice concerning the petitioner's confrontation rights was not provided by the trial court in its colloquy at the time of the petitioner's plea. Therefore, the State requests that this Court remand the case for a hearing to determine if this omission was harmless. We agree and remand the matter for this purpose.