APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The pro se Petitioner, Thomas Earl Williams, appeals the habeas corpus court’s order summarily dismissing his petition, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous for several reasons. Principally, he contends that he is entitled to relief because the sentencing statutes under which he was sentenced in 1974 were later found to be unconstitutional. Following our review, we conclude that his sentences are lawful and have not expired, and that his judgments are not void. Consequently, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s order of summary dismissal.

The defendants, Shawn McCobb and Marcus Walker, were convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced as Range I, standard offenders to ten years in the Department of Correction. In their consolidated appeal, they argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions and the trial court erred in imposing ten-year sentences. Defendant Walker additionally asserts that it was error for the trial court to impose a fine over $50 and allow his impeachment with a prior conviction. Following our review, we affirm the convictions and sentences of the trial court but modify the fines imposed to $50 each.

Petitioner, Timothy Baxter, pled guilty to a multitude of offenses on December 10, 2001. As a result of this negotiated plea, Petitioner received an effective sentence of twelve years. Petitioner did not file a petition for post-conviction relief until February 25, 2005, which was over two years outside the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 40-30-102. On May 4, 2005, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition for being outside the statute of limitations. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On July 20, 2006, over a year after the post-conviction court filed its order dismissing his petition, Petitioner filed a motion for delayed notice of appeal. Five days later, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner’s request. On August 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the postconviction court’s dismissal of his motion for delayed appeal. Following a thorough review of the record, we dismiss Petitioner’s appeal on the grounds that there is no entitlement to a delayed appeal from the post-conviction court’s denial of Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. In addition, it is not in the interest of justice to waive the timely filing of a notice of appeal in Petitioner’s case. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rendered in her favor contending that the award was insufficient to compensate her for her injuries. In the absence of a transcript or sufficient statement of the evidence, we affirm.

The defendant, Tymetric Lejuan Graham, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to twelve years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, he argues that his indictment charged attempted aggravated robbery only and that, therefore, the trial court erred in submitting the charge of aggravated robbery to the jury. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court. We remand for entry of a conviction and sentence for attempted aggravated robbery.

I concur in the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I write separately because I believe the trial court should have, as it originally ruled, barred use of the defendant’s aggravated robbery conviction for impeachment. The main conduct of aggravated robbery that relates to dishonesty is essentially a theft. In the present case, the state had evidence of two prior theft convictions and two other acts of theft with which to impeach the defendant. To allow use, as well, of an aggravated robbery conviction in this aggravated robbery trial would add little probative value on the issue of the defendant’s credibility compared to the substantial prejudice it would have by involving an offense similar to the offense on trial.

In this divorce case, Anna C. Burden (“Wife”) challenges the trial court’s award of joint custody and its adoption of the Permanent Parenting Plan submitted by Harry Donald Burden (“Husband”), which plan provides for equal parenting time with regard to the parties’ child, A.V. (“Child”). Wife contends that she should be the primary residential parent, with Husband having visitation rights. Wife also challenges the court’s division of the marital property and its denial of alimony. We reverse as to custody, affirm as to the division of property, and vacate the judgment as to alimony. This case is remanded for further proceedings on the issue of alimony.

Plaintiff Milan Box filed this lawsuit against former employee Donna Hardy and her husband, Billy Hardy, alleging fraud, embezzlement, conversion, and unjust enrichment. During discovery the Hardys submitted responses to written interrogatories, but subsequently asserted their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination during deposition and moved the court to stay litigationpending criminal proceedings. The Hardys subsequently withdrew the motion to stay; nevertheless, the trial court denied the motion to stay when the Hardys failed to execute deeds of trust to real property in favor of Milan Box as security. The trial court granted Milan Box’s motion for summary judgment, and the Hardys appeal. We affirm summary judgment against Donna Hardy but modify the award of damages, reverse the award of summary judgment against Mr. Hardy, and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, Marcus Dwayne Welcome, appeals as of right his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction for criminal responsibility for aggravated robbery for which he received a sentence of twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he contends that double jeopardy precludes his conviction, that the verdict form incorrectly and prejudicially characterized criminal responsibility as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, that the trial court should have granted a mistrial based upon the witness’s reference to the defendant’s previous incarceration, that the trial court erred in ruling a prior robbery admissible for impeachment purposes, and that the trial court committed errors related to sentencing. Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant, Marlow Williams, was indicted in June of 2003 with six counts of aggravated robbery. In September of 2004, Appellant invoked the provisions of the Interstate Compact on Detainers to dispose of his charges in Tennessee. The Assistant Attorney General and Shelby County Criminal Court received the Request for Disposition of Indictment on October 4, 2004. Appellant was transported to Tennessee. A jury trial was held in September of 2005, where Appellant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Appellant to concurrent ten year sentences, but merged Count 2 for a single sentence under Count 1. On appeal, Appellant argues that: (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment because his trial was held after the expiration of the 180 days provided for in the Interstate Compact on Detainers; (2) the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony on fingerprints; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; and (4) the trial court improperly sentenced him. We determine that the trial was not held in violation of the Interstate Compact on Detainers and that the trial court properly admitted expert testimony on fingerprints. Furthermore, despite the improper application of enhancement factor (3), the offense involved more than one victim, we determine that the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. As a result, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Melvin Cofer, was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular assault. As a result, the petitioner received concurrent sentences of twenty-one years and three years. The petitioner’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Melvin Cofer, No. W2002-01984-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 21729450, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jul. 25, 2003), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Nov. 24, 2003). Subsequently, the supreme court denied permission to appeal. The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging, on numerous grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel was appointed and several amended petitions were filed. The petition was denied by the post-conviction court after a hearing. This appeal followed. Because the post-conviction court properly denied the petition, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this action for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the Trial Judge approved a jury verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff appealed on grounds of jury misconduct. We affirm.

The defendant, Milton Lebron Byrd, was convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the offenses and sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole as a repeat violent offender. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction and that the repeat violent offenders statute is unconstitutional in violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and of his due process and equal protection rights. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant was cited for criminal contempt by Judge. Another Judge found defendant guilty of contempt. We affirm.

In this action, plaintiff obtained a Default Judgment. Defendant moved to set aside the Judgment. The Trial Court refused, and we affirm.

James Wesley Daniels, the defendant, appeals his convictions for premeditated first degree murder and attempted second degree murder. The defendant asserts as grounds for appeal that: the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse himself; and the trial court erred in failing to take remedial action after the defendant was observed in restraints by some jury members. We have concluded that no reversible error is present, and we affirm the convictions.

The defendant, John Dupree, appeals the trial court’s judgment denying any form of alternative sentence. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to allow him to call witnesses during the sentencing hearing and in denying an alternative sentence. After careful review, we conclude that no reversible error occurred during the sentencing hearing and that the denial of alternative sentencing was proper. We affirm the judgment from the trial court.

The petitioner, Macario Chism, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his 2007 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the petition, the petitioner challenged the validity of his
multiple 1993 Shelby County convictions, which were the results of guilty pleas and included
convictions of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. The petition
alleged that the petitioner was free on bond on the charge of aggravated burglary when he was
arrested for nine of the other offenses, and he claimed that the partial concurrent alignment of the
resulting sentences rendered his judgments void. Because the petitioner failed to file a statutorily
compliant petition, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the petition.

Muriel Powers Davis was hospitalized in the John W. Harton Regional Medical Center for pneumonia. During the admission process, it was noted she had recently fallen and had difficulty ambulating without assistance. As a result, fall precautions were implemented. Two days later, during the evening hours, she was discovered lying in the floor. An X-ray revealed a fractured femur. The fracture was surgically repaired, but Ms. Davis died some twenty days after her fall. Her next of kin instituted a medical malpractice action against the hospital alleging that Ms. Davis's fall was the result of negligent care provided by the hospital. The hospital moved for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court. After carefully reviewing the record, we are of the opinion that the affidavit filed by the hospital in support of its motion for summary judgment failed to negate the plaintiffs' right of recovery and so we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, after denial of his motion to suppress evidence, entered a plea of guilty to possession with intent to sell more than one-half gram of cocaine, a Class B felony. The negotiated sentence was eight years as a standard offender. The defendant appeals pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(I). After review, we conclude that denial of the motion to suppress was error. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and dismiss the charges.

The defendant, David Milken, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. He received concurrent sentences of life and twenty years. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs into evidence. We conclude that no error exists, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Terrance N. Carter, pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in Davidson County which was summarily dismissed. He appealed pro se and was appointed counsel by this court. His pro se filing challenges whether the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. His appointed counsel requests that his habeas corpus petition be treated as one for post-conviction relief and that this court order the Davidson County Court to transfer the matter to the Maury County Criminal Court to proceed as if the petition was for post-conviction relief. We conclude that, without express authority, we should not order a transfer in this case, and the summary dismissal is affirmed.

The petitioner, Ronald Dennis Crafton, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that his judgments for rape are void because the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and because he was sentenced in absentia. Because the petitioner has failed to assert a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed

In this case, the plaintiff, Charles Jones, stepped onto a wooden bench while playing a round of golf at Vanderbilt Legends Club of Tennessee (Legends), a golf course owned by the defendant, Kite/Cupp Legends Golf Development Co. (Kite). The bench overturned and Mr. Jones fell sustaining significant injuries. Mr. Jones brought a premises liability suit against the golf course alleging that it was negligent by failing to have secured the bench to the concrete slab on which it was sitting or by failing to have warned players it was not so secured. Kite filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court. We find there are genuine issues of material fact, and so we reverse.

The petitioner, Marcillo C. Anderson,1 appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
He argues that counsel was ineffective due to his failure to: (1) adequately communicate with him
concerning his case; (2) provide him with discovery materials regarding his case; (3) adequately
investigate the case; and (4) adequately present proof that he was acting in self-defense. After
review, we affirm the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.