APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, William Terry, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that Petitioner’s plea of guilty was voluntary and knowing and in finding that Petitioner’s trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel prior to and during plea negotiations. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The Defendant, Calvin Owens, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and one count of attempted second degree murder, all Class B felonies. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to eleven years for each of his four convictions. The trial court ordered three of the sentences to be served consecutively, with the sentence for the remaining conviction to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty-three years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to thirty-three years. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

We granted permission to appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in dividing as marital property funds that were missing at the time the divorce complaint was filed. We hold that the missing funds are not marital property that can be divided between the parties. However, we also conclude that the trial court may properly consider Husband's careless handling of those funds in distributing property that does constitute marital property. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals as modified, and we remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration of its property division and alimony award.

Defendant, Treacy F. Lewis, entered a plea of nolo contendre to the offense of murder in the second degree. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant appeals the length of her sentence, arguing that the trial court misapplied enhancement factor (4), the victim was particularly vulnerable because of age and physical disabilities, and failed to give sufficient consideration to the applicable mitigating factors. Defendant does not challenge the application of enhancement factor (9), based upon the use of a gun in the commission of the offense. Based on a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied enhancement factor (4) in its sentencing determinations. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the trial court to reduce the sentence to twenty-two years.

On September 1, 1977, the petitioner, Carl E. Saine, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of rape and one count of assault with the intent to commit murder in the first degree. He was sentenced to ninety-five years imprisonment for his rape conviction and to not less than six years nor more than twenty-one years imprisonment for his assault conviction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed to compel testing of evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed. On appeal, Petitioner argues (1) that the post-conviction court erred in not stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying Petitioner post-conviction relief; (2) that Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; and (3) that Petitioner was not afforded a full and fair evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Jerry Lee Cowan, seeks appellate review of the Blount County Circuit Court's denial of his motion to reopen his 1992 post-conviction relief petition. Finding no merit in the appeal, we affirm the lower court's judgment.

The appellant, Titus Champion, was convicted of robbery pursuant to a bench trial in the Gibson County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II multiple offender to six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the State did not prove the element of violence as was alleged in the indictment charging the appellant with robbery. Finding the appellant’s argument to have merit, we modify his conviction for robbery to a conviction for theft under $500 and remand to the trial court for sentencing.

The defendant, Hoyle Orr, appeals as of right from his convictions following a bench trial in the Blount County Circuit Court for driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor. The defendant received concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for the DUI and six months for driving on a revoked license and was ordered to serve seven months of his sentence in the county jail, the remainder on probation. He was fined one thousand, one hundred dollars and his license was revoked for three years. The defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for DUI, and (2) the trial court erred by sentencing him to more than the statutory minimum amounts of confinement for the convictions. We affirm the judgments of conviction.

The petitioner, Jason Michael Crim, appeals the trial court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner, Andrew Levi Jefferson, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of post-conviction and habeas corpus relief. In his amended, combined petitions for relief, the petitioner challenges his 2001, guilty-pleaded convictions of second degree murder and attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the petitioner claims post-conviction relief because his trial counsel were ineffective in failing to defeat the transfer of the petitioner's case from juvenile court to criminal court, in preventing the petitioner from testifying at the transfer hearing, by failing to investigate and discover the petitioner's mental status, and in failing to present a critical issue in pretrial motions. Also, the petitioner claims that his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowing and that he was denied due process because he was not allowed to testify in the juvenile court transfer hearing. In his joined claim for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner claims that, because of errors in the transfer from juvenile court, the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his case. Based upon our review, we find no reversible error and affirm the actions of the post-conviction court.