APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Lisa White, a/k/a Lisa Croft, appeals her conviction for aggravated robbery. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and alleges she was prejudiced by allegedly improper remarks by the prosecutor during opening arguments. After a thorough review of the record, this Court disagrees and affirms the appellant's conviction.

The defendant, Mary Christine Whiteside Cook, seeks to appeal as of right from the trial court's denying her petition to enforce a plea bargain agreement and her request for a writ of habeas corpus. She asserts that pursuant to the agreement, she is entitled to immediate release from her imprisonment, which results from her 1986 conviction upon her plea of guilty to first degree murder. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal because of the lack of jurisdiction.

The issues in this interlocutory appeal by the state, as we view them, are straightforward: (1) whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee has the authority by rule to prohibit a full-time municipal judge from representing a defendant or otherwise practicing law after 180 days from assuming judicial office; and (2) if so, whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee intended exactly what the rule says. We conclude that it does and did. We further conclude that a violation of this Supreme Court Rule is prejudicial to the judicial process, and the issue is not waived by the failure of the opposing party to request disqualification at its first opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court which declined to disqualify defendant's attorney, a sitting judge, from further participation in this case.

The Appellant, Waylon D. Knott, was indicted by a Stewart County Grand Jury on one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, one count of possession with intent to sell methamphetamine, and one count of felony possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a traffic stop for improper registration, Knott, after first refusing, granted consent to search his vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a quantity of drugs. Knott moved to suppress the evidence upon grounds that consent was not voluntarily given. The trial court granted Knott's motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment, finding that the "search was unconstitutional because the officer had no reasonable, articulable suspicion of further criminal activity to justify the request to search the vehicle and further detain [Knott]." The State appeals from the trial court's ruling asserting that Knott's consent was voluntary and therefore the search was valid. We find that the dispositive issues presented are: (1) whether Knott was unlawfully detained at the time that he consented to the search and, if so; (2) whether Knott's consent to search was voluntarily given. Because no findings were entered relevant to these issues, we are required to remand for findings of fact on these questions. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded.

The Appellant, Donald W. Rhea, Jr. was indicted on one count of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery stemming from a single criminal episode. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rhea pled guilty to the lesser offenses of robbery and attempt to commit robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the Davidson County Criminal Court sentenced Rhea to the maximum sentence of six years for robbery and three years for attempted robbery. The court, finding Rhea's history of criminal activity extensive, further ordered that these sentences be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of nine years in the Department of Correction. Rhea appeals to this court, contending that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. After review of the record, we affirm.

The defendant appeals from the trial court's imposition of the maximum sentences within the range. The State agrees that the trial court erred in applying enhancement factor (7). After review, we conclude that neither enhancement factor (7) nor (15) is applicable under these facts. Therefore, the defendant's sentence is modified to the statutorily required sentences of eight years in the Department of Correction at 100 percent for the aggravated sexual battery offense and to three years on each attempted aggravated sexual battery offense.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea of guilty was involuntarily entered. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that the trial court denied him an opportunity to have a full and fair hearing on the merits of his claim. After review, we agree with the trial court and affirm the dismissal.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel failed to call certain witnesses and did not call the petitioner to testify on his own behalf at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petitioner any relief.

The appellant, Ronald W. Byrd, was convicted in the Sullivan County Criminal Court of attempt to commit aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal trespass, and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court should have permitted the jury to consider the issue of whether the appellant's conduct was fairly motivated by his desire to make a citizen's arrest; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction of attempted aggravated kidnapping. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Phillip Michael Cisson, entered pleas of guilt on two counts of burglary and two counts of theft over $1,000. The plea agreement provided for concurrent two-year sentences on each conviction. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erroneously denied probation. The judgment is affirmed.

The summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed because the petitioner failed to adequately allege ineffective assistance of counsel based upon conflict of interests and the claim of incompetency to stand trial is waived.

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.

After waiving his right to a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. For this offense he received a sentence of two years as a Range I, standard offender. However, the trial court ordered this sentence suspended after the service of thirty days. Through this appeal the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing impeachment evidence to be introduced through Officer Steve Blankenship and that the evidence is insufficient to support his having possessed the marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver it. After reviewing the record, we find that neither of these claims merit reversal and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction, but remand for correction of the judgment to reflect the defendant was convicted at a bench trial.

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.

The appellant, Allan Brooks, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The appellant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to (1) demand a sequestered jury, (2) object to a display used by the prosecution during cross-examination of the appellant, (3) object to the mention of the appellant's first trial, and (4) seek an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling regarding the testimony of Josh Peyton, the victim's six year old son. We find that the appellant received effective assistance of counsel and that his claims to the contrary are without merit. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.