APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves an inmate’s challenge to the denial of his application for parole by the Tennessee Board of Paroles. After serving approximately ten years ofa 35-year sentence for aggravated rape, the inmate filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Tennessee Board of Paroles was illegally and arbitrarily declining to honor his plea bargain agreement. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and because it was not timely filed. The inmate has appealed pro se. We concur that the petition was not timely filed and affirm its dismissal in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).1

The Defendant, Michael Brent Cook, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the Sumner County Criminal Court. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his proba tion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Martin R. Craddock, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. He is presently in the custody of the Department of Correction serving a Range I sentence of ten years for his conviction of aggravated sexual battery in 1995. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment for aggravated sexual battery fails to allege the mens rea for the offense. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

After a 1996 divorce by the Circuit Court of Davidson County the husband filed an independent damages action in the chancery court, alleging that the wife fraudulently induced him to enter into the divorce settlement. The wife filed a Rule 60.02 motion in the divorce court seeking a declaration that she was not guilty of fraud. The divorce court ruled that the chancery court was bound by the circuit court’s judgment and that the husband must pay $2500 in attorney’s fees to the wife for services in the Rule 60.02 motion. We reverse.