APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea and motion for a new trial. On appeal, defendant has two assertions: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the State committed a Brady violation. Concluding that defendant received effective assistance of counsel and did not demonstrate a Brady violation, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The Williamson County Grand Jury returned separate, one-count presentments against the defendant, Tracy T. Bostic, charging him with felony sale or delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417, and with felony sale or delivery of a counterfeit controlled substance, in violation of Code section 39-17-423. The defendant was tried and convicted on the controlled substance charge, and the trial court imposed an incarcerative sentence of nine years as a Range II, multiple offender and assessed a $25,000 fine. The defendant elected to forego a trial on the counterfeit controlled substance charge, and he entered a “blind” guilty plea to that offense, for which he received a three-year incarcerative sentence as a Range II, multiple offender, which was ordered to be served consecutively to the nine-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence upon which his controlled substance conviction rests, and he complains about the length and manner of service of his combined sentences and about the $25,000 fine. Based upon our review of the video record in this case and our consideration of the briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and the incarcerative portion of his sentences, but we modify the $25,000 fine imposed to $15,000.

A Madison County jury convicted the petitioner and his co-defendants of felony murder, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, especially aggravated burglary, and theft over five hundred dollars. See State v. Montez Antuan Adams, No. 02C01-9709-CC-00352, 1998 WL 556174, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Sept. 1, 1998). For these offenses the petitioner effectively received a life sentence. Id. On appeal this Court reduced the especially aggravated burglary to aggravated burglary and announced the corresponding sentence for this offense with respect to the petitioner and each of his co-defendants; however, the remainder of the convictions were affirmed, and the effective sentence remained the same. Id. at *1, *9. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition and received appointed counsel thereon. At the evidentiary hearing on this petition, the petitioner unsuccessfully pursued an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Through this appeal he continues to aver that he received ineffective assistance because counsel did not fully discuss potential trial tactics and strategies with him, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to aid in his defense. After considering this matter, we determine that the petitioner has failed to prove that this claim merits relief. As such, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's post-conviction petition.

The Defendant, Kenneth Javon Bills, was convicted by a jury of attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault. He was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to ten years for the attempted murder and four years for the aggravated assault, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether double jeopardy principles require dismissal of his aggravated assault conviction; (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting certain rap lyrics authored by the Defendant; and (4) whether his sentence is excessive. Finding that double jeopardy principles prohibit the Defendant's dual convictions, we reverse and dismiss the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant brings this interlocutory appeal in which he challenges the prosecutor's denial of pretrial diversion for simple assault and the trial court's denial of his certiorari petition. We conclude the prosecutor properly considered the need for deterrence for domestic violence, the defendant's lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility for his actions, and the seriousness of the offense and its impact upon the victim. However, we conclude the prosecutor wrongfully considered certain factors relating to domestic violence cases that have no application to the circumstances of this case, and wrongfully considered the defendant's depression for which he takes prescription medication. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand this matter to the district attorney general for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.

The petitioner originally pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to one count of aggravated assault for an agreed eight-year sentence as a Range II multiple offender. He timely sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this appeal, the petitioner contends his trial counsel was ineffective, and his guilty plea was involuntary. We affirm.