APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated robbery and attempted robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective nine-year term. The Defendant appealed, and our Court affirmed the case in part, but remanded the case in part for the trial court to determine whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated. On remand, the trial court found that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial had not been violated. The Defendant now appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss for a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pled guilty to theft under $500 and to violating an habitual traffic offender order. She entered Alford pleas to possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Her total effective sentence was two years as a Range I standard offender plus eleven months and twenty-nine days on supervised probation. The manner of service of the two-year sentence was to be determined by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve the entire two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to impose an alternative sentence. Concluding that the record supports the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, indicted on counts of especially aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, theft over $1,000.00, and evading arrest, entered pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery and theft over $1,000.00. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years. There was no appeal. Later, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief and the trial court granted a delayed appeal. The issues presented for our review are as follows: (1) whether the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a direct appeal or by failing to timely file a motion to reduce the sentence; (3) whether the trial court properly modified an illegal sentence; and (4) whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The judgment is affirmed.

Carrie Mildred Mayer Dube ("Wife") sued Michael Norman Dube ("Husband") for a divorce. Wife is primarily a stay-at-home mother and Husband is an emergency room physician. The Trial Court divided the marital property with 65% of the property going to Wife. The Trial Court awarded Wife permanent alimony of $3,200 per month after finding Wife could not be sufficiently rehabilitated. Child support was set based on Husband's income for 2000, during which time he claims to have worked approximately 90 hours per week. Husband appeals the division of marital property, award of permanent alimony, and amount of child support which was based on his 90 hour work week. We affirm.

Defendant, Darren A. Dewalt, appeals as of right from the trial court's order revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentence to be served in the Shelby County Correction Center. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation based upon an unidentified and unsubstantiated laboratory report indicating that Defendant had used drugs in violation of his probation. Based upon a review of the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Paul Hayes, appeals his convictions by a Shelby County jury for aggravated burglary and two counts of aggravated robbery. In this appeal as of right, Hayes raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by prohibiting defense counsel from addressing the jury during entry of the plea; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying Hayes' motion for a mistrial following a detective's testimony that Hayes was a suspect in uncharged similar crimes; (3) whether the trial court committed plain error by limiting the scope of cross-examination of a co-defendant testifying for the State; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the convictions; and (5) whether the cumulative effect of all errors amounted to a denial of due process of law. After a review of the record, we hold that Hayes' issues are without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Colin Reed Wells, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of carjacking (Class B felony), robbery (Class C felony), aggravated assault (Class C felony), resisting arrest (Class B misdemeanor), violation of driver's license law (Class B misdemeanor), evading arrest (Class A misdemeanor), evading arrest (Class D felony), and assault (Class A misdemeanor). Following his convictions, the trial court merged some convictions and imposed an effective sentence of 32 years as a multiple offender in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he claims his carjacking conviction is infirm because the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Mark E. Conner, was convicted by a jury of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class D felony. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues four issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction, (2) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of witnesses Sherri Conner, the Defendant's wife and former co-defendant, and Gloria Whitehead, the Defendant's mother-in-law, (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to require the State to provide the Defendant with any statement, arrest history, and prior convictions of the State's witnesses, and (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to exclude the State's photographs and the Defendant's request to introduce at trial the remaining photographs that were provided to the Defendant during discovery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Randolph Scott Jennings appeals from his Hamilton County conviction of aggravated robbery. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced by the trial court to a seventeen-year, Range II term in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he alleges error in the trial court's (1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a "showup" identification and admission of the subsequent in-court identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime, (2) denial of motions to compel production of clothing the defendant wore at the time of his arrest, or alternatively, to dismiss the charged based upon the state's inability to produce the clothing, and (3) application of enhancement factors, imposition of a Range II sentence, and order of consecutive sentencing. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Javonni Jones, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as being barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Giles County jury convicted the defendant, Timothy Maurice Reynolds, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty years as a Range II multiple offender. On direct appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated robbery; (2) whether the trial court erred in prohibiting defense counsel, during cross-examination and closing arguments, from referring to the United States Attorney General's comments on eyewitness identification; and (3) whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant to be a Range II multiple offender. We affirm the conviction; however, because essential exhibits relating to sentencing are missing from the record without fault of the parties, we remand for resentencing.