APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Hollis G. Williams (defendant), was convicted of first-degree felony murder by a jury of his peers. The State of Tennessee sought the extreme penalty of death. However, the jury set his punishment at life without the possibility of parole. The defendant presents three issues for review. He contends (a) the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support his conviction for a murder committed during an attempt to commit robbery, (b) the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by ruling his two convictions for attempt to commit robbery could be used to impeach him if he opted to testify in support of his defense, and (c) the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by permitting the state to introduce victim impact testimony during the sentencing hearing. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this Court the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

The Defendant, John Parnell Yaugher, appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant was convicted following a jury trial in Anderson County of the offense of rape of a child. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the indictment to charge an offense. Also, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and specifically argues that his confession was uncorroborated, that there was no proof of penetration, and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane at the time of the offense. Furth er, the Defendant argu es that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress his statement to investigators and by charging in the jury instructions the lesser grade offense of aggravated sexual battery. Finding no
error, and that the indictment and the evidence are sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Olen Eddie Hutchison, appeals as of right from the Campbell County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. He was convicted in 1991 for the first degree murder of Hugh Huddleston and received the death penalty. He was also convicted of conspiracy to take a life and solicitation to commit first degreemurder for which he received a total sentence of twenty-two years. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Hutchison, 898 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied, U.S. , 116 S. Ct. 137 (1995). We affirm the denial of postconviction
relief.

The appellant, John C. Tomlinson, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. In April 1983, the appellant was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of aggravated kidnaping and two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. For these convictions, he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. In December 1983, the appellant was convicted in the Wilson County Criminal Court of aggravated rape and armed robbery resulting in sentences totaling 35 years. The appellant is currently confined at the Northeast Correctional Center where he is serving an effective sentence of 65 years for the convictions from both counties. The appellant now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the appellant contends that the trial court’s summary dismissal denied him his right to due process of the law.

On February 10, 1995, Appellant Telly Slayton was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of murder in the perpetration of robbery in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-13-202(2) (Supp. 1996). The trial court ordered a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant raises three issues for review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction ; (2) whether the trial court erred in overruling Appellant’s motion to suppress his statement given to police officers; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting, over Appellant’s objection, a photograph of the victim taken while the victim was alive. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, William David Clapp, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.