APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on December 17, 1996, and the petitioner’s brief was filed on February 7, 1997. The petitioner was originally indicted for aggravated rape in February 1987, and the petitioner was subsequently convicted of the same. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged.

Appellant Philip Mark Nunley appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On March 23, 1993, Appellant pled guilty to seconddegree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Appellant received a sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment for second-degree murder and twenty years imprisonment for especially aggravated robbery. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. On July 10, 1993, Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that he involuntarily entered his guilty plea. The post-conviction court dismissed his petition, finding Appellant’s petition without merit. On appeal, Appellant argues that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered. For the reasons discussed below, we reject Appellant’s claim and affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Billy Joe Baggett, was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen (15) years as a Range III, Persistent Offender. On appeal, he presents ten (10) issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for aggravated burglary; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce tape recordings of four (4) telephone conversations between Baggett and a state informant; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce a prybar into evidence; (4) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to use prior convictions for impeachment purposes; (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to present evidence of Baggett’s escape from jail; (6) whether the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial following a state witness’ prejudicial remarks; (7) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of Baggett’s preferential treatment while in jail; (8) whether the charge to the jury as to reasonable doubt was unconstitutional; (9) whether the trial court erred in sentencing Baggett; and (10)  whether the delay in hearing the motion for new trial violated his right to a speedy appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.