APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant was indicted by the Carroll County Grand Jury for one count of introduction of drugs into a penal institution. The Defendant moved for pretrial diversion, but the request was denied by the District Attorney General. The Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the trial court to review the denial. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the District Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying the Defendant's request for pretrial diversion. The Defendant then pled guilty to one count of introduction of drugs into a penal institution and requested judicial diversion. The trial court denied judicial diversion and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspended after sixty days confinement. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her pretrial diversion, judicial diversion or full probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kathleen Malley, entered a guilty plea to theft of over $60,000, a Class B felony, in exchange for an agreed sentence of eight years incarceration. Following a sentencing hearing to determine the manner of service of that sentence, the Defendant was ordered to serve six months in jail followed by twelve years of probation. She was also ordered to pay $100,000 in restitution. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to grant her full probation. We find no error. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Laverne Long, entered a guilty plea to reckless homicide, a Class D felony, in exchange for a two year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. Following an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant's motion to suspend her sentence, the trial court denied alternative sentencing. The Defendant now appeals as of right from the denial of alternative sentencing. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Marcus D. Polk, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and first degree murder and received a total effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of his plea counsel, which petition was denied by the post-conviction court. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, James Richard Bishop, was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Following a sentencing hearing, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder and concurrent sentences of twenty years and five years respectively for the especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. On appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. James Richard Bishop, No. 03C01-9308-CR-00268, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 536, at *1, Knox County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, August 18, 1994), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1994). Petitioner filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Knox County Criminal Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. He challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, based upon a ruling that Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner was originally convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition, counsel was appointed, and the petition was denied. In this appeal, the petitioner alleges that this matter should be remanded to the post-conviction court for a new hearing since he was unable to present his claim for relief. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner is entitled to a new post-conviction hearing.

The petitioner was originally convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape of a child. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this appeal as a matter of right, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied post-conviction relief.

The defendant appeals his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit felony murder. After careful review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. Further, we hold that conspiracy to commit felony murder is not a recognizable offense in Tennessee. Therefore, we affirm the defendant's convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. We reverse and dismiss the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit felony murder.

The defendant was indicted for attempted first degree murder. A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and the trial court sentenced him to four years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant alleges: (1) his insanity defense was established by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted statements made by the defendant and a weapon seized from his vehicle; (3) the trial court erroneously restricted the testimony of a psychiatrist by disallowing his statement that the defendant was committable if found not guilty by reason of insanity, while allowing him to testify that the defendant stated he believed he would be free to go home within 60 to 90 days if adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity; (4) the trial court erroneously allowed the state to call a psychiatrist because the defense was not notified pre-trial that he would be an expert witness; (5) the trial court improperly found that a psychiatrist was qualified to testify as an expert; and (6) the trial court erroneously refused the defendant's request to have the opening and rebuttal closing arguments.  After a through review of the record, we reverse the judgment of conviction, modify the judgment to “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,” and remand for further proceedings pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-7-303.