APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Jason Michael Crim, appeals the trial court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, Mark Steve Maynard, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court's ruling on a probation violation warrant. On September 11, 2002, the court revoked the defendant's October 20, 2000 probation that had resulted from four felony bad check convictions. The court ordered the defendant to serve his original effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction. Although the defendant admitted that he had violated his probation, he challenges the trial court's decision to require him to serve the original sentences in incarceration. Discerning no error in the lower court's judgment, we affirm.

The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition, alleging that proof of counsel's substance abuse was a "late-arising" claim that involved due process concerns. The petitioner also challenged his hybrid sentence as to voluntary manslaughter as illegal and unconstitutional. We affirm the trial court's dismissal.

The petitioner, Shannon Pattum, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. He claims that his 1999 conviction for attempt to commit second degree murder is the result of ineffective assistance of counsel and an unknowing, involuntary guilty plea. The lower court disagreed and dismissed the petition. Upon our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm.

The petitioner was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated arson. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to second degree murder and setting fire to personal property. The petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. The post-conviction court denied the petitioner relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. The defendant pled guilty to possession of crack cocaine (Schedule II controlled substance) with intent to sell (Class B felony). He agreed to an eight-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined at a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction, based on the defendant’s prior criminal record and his inability to reform his conduct. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Steven Brian Wooley,1 of theft of property over $10,000. The trial court sentenced him to four years in confinement as a Range I standard offender. On direct appeal, the defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

The defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for a three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation with the trial court to determine the amount of restitution. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay approximately $7,900.00 in restitution. In this appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to allow proof at sentencing regarding the circumstances surrounding the offense; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing restitution for the victim’s lost wages, attorney’s fees, and bond expenses, the latter two expenses resulting from the victim’s defending himself against baseless criminal charges brought by the defendant. We affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the admissibility of evidence and its order requiring the defendant to pay restitution for the victim’s lost wages; we reverse the portion of the judgment which requires the defendant to pay restitution for the victim’s attorney’s fees and bond expenses.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief relating to his conviction for second degree murder. He argues: (1) the trial court at his original trial improperly instructed the jury regarding the definition of “knowing”; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument at the original trial; and (3) he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Johnson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Kenneth E. Coffey, for possession with intent to sell and deliver 241.1 grams of marijuana, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417 (Supp. 2000). Following the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, the Defendant pled guilty to Possession of Marijuana for Purpose of Sale. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to one year in prison and imposed a $2,000.00 fine. The Defendant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law regarding the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The appellant, Melissa A. Mellinger, was convicted by a jury in the Wilson County Criminal Court of two counts of first offense driving under the influence (DUI), Class A misdemeanors. The trial court merged the convictions, imposed a three hundred fifty dollar ($350) fine, and sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be suspended upon serving two hundred seventy-three (273) days in the county jail. The trial court also suspended the appellant's driver's license for one year. On appeal, the appellant argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Dwan L. Crisp, pled guilty in the Obion County Circuit Court to one count of rape and was sentenced to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  Subsequently, the petitioner filed for testing of human biological evidence under the Post-Conviction
DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Darrow Lynn Williams, seeks post-conviction relief from his 2001 second degree murder conviction. The Tipton County Circuit Court denied post-conviction relief, and now on appeal, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to prepare and devise a trial strategy. Because the record supports the lower court’s decision, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that he made out a prima facie case of mental incompetence and should therefore have been granted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due process required that the statute of limitations be tolled. Based on our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition.

Convicted by a jury of first degree murder, the defendant, Shawn Hodge, appeals and claims (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court erred in denying a jury view of the crime scene, (3) the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of a threat made against a defense witness, (4) the defendant was prejudiced by an attempt by the state to pay a prosecution witness, (5) the court inadequately instructed the jury on the elements of the offense, and (6) the court erroneously admitted the testimony of an allegedly incompetent defense witness. We affirm the lower court's judgment.

Defendant, Joseph Scott Hayes, was indicted for two counts of aggravated assault, one count of stalking and one count of coercion of a witness. Following a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of coercion of a witness. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction on the charge of stalking. The trial court sentenced Defendant to four years imprisonment on each count of aggravated assault and three years imprisonment for his conviction for coercion of a witness. The trial court ordered Defendant's sentences for aggravated assault to run consecutively, and his sentence for coercion of a witness to run concurrently with his aggravated assault convictions for an effective sentence of eight years. Defendant now appeals challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following a review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The defendant pled guilty to driving while under the status of a habitual motor offender; two counts of driving under the influence, seventh offense; two counts of driving on a revoked license, eighth offense; and violation of the implied consent law. The trial court gave the defendant an effective sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by not granting him alternative sentencing. Plain error requires us to vacate the judgment of conviction for driving on a revoked license (count three) because of double jeopardy prohibitions. The other judgments from the trial court are affirmed in all respects.