APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant entered a best interest plea of guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and was sentenced to four years on community corrections. The plea attempted to reserve a certified question of law relating to the suppression of evidence. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to address the certified question of law. The appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and two counts of theft over one thousand dollars, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of three years incarceration in the local workhouse. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioners in the instant case each pled guilty to one count of murder in the perpetration of a robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202, one count of especially aggravated robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-403, and one count of aggravated assault under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102. The Petitioners were sentenced to concurrent sentences of life, twenty-five years, and six years, respectively. On April 20, 1995, the Petitioners filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Special Judge Bobby Capers was appointed to hear the post-conviction petition. The trial court heard the Petitioners' petition between August 9, 1999 and August 19, 1999, and granted post-conviction relief to Petitioners Smith and Versie. On December 3, 1999, the State filed a notice of appeal, challenging the post-conviction court's findings that neither of the Petitioners received effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court was correct in granting post-conviction relief to the Petitioners. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The Defendant pleaded guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted the Defendant of first degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jerry Lynn Sanders, appeals from his convictions of aggravated burglary, theft of property less than $500.00, and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his request to admit into evidence a notarized statement wherein the alleged victim stated that he wanted to dismiss the charges in this matter. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Upon his guilty plea, the Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent ten year sentences to be served on community corrections. Several months into service of his sentences, the Defendant was arrested and his community corrections sentences were revoked. The trial court subsequently resentenced the Defendant to two consecutive ten year sentences. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court was without authority to impose consecutive sentences and that consecutive sentences are improper. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The Defendant, Cyrus D. Wilson, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.¹ The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his trial was tainted by due process violations. After an evidentiary hearing the post-conviction court denied relief. The Defendant now appeals as of right. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The defendant, Thomas Jared Richardson, pled guilty to two counts of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of six years for each count, to be served in the Davidson County Workhouse. The trial court also assessed a fine of $3,500 and ordered the defendant to forfeit his weapon. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court should have imposed probation or some other alternative sentence. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals from the denial of his post-conviction petition, contending that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

The Defendant pled guilty to selling over twenty-six grams of cocaine, possession with intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana. As to his conviction for possession with intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine, the Defendant reserved the following certified question of law: whether the search warrant was void for execution more than 120 hours after issuance. We hold that the five-day period in which a search warrant must be executed is to be computed using calendar days rather than hours. Thus, a search warrant is valid if executed by midnight of the fifth day after its issuance, with the calculation of days to exclude the day of issuance. We further hold that the search warrant in this case was properly executed within the five-day period and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, indicted for the false reporting of a bomb threat at an elementary school, was convicted of the offense of harassment, and fined $1000. No motion for a new trial was filed. In a pro se appeal to this court, the defendant raises essentially four issues: (1) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether he was denied the right to testify at trial; (3) whether the State withheld exculpatory evidence; and (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of harassment. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.