APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

The defendant, Steven A. Norvell, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as one hundred forty days in jail and the remainder on probation. In addition, the trial court ordered that he participate in an alcohol evaluation and treatment program, suspended his driving privileges for three years, and imposed a one thousand one hundred dollar fine. The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the state offered no proof that the result of his breathalyzer test was accurate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Mark Steve Maynard, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court's ruling on a probation violation warrant. On September 11, 2002, the court revoked the defendant's October 20, 2000 probation that had resulted from four felony bad check convictions. The court ordered the defendant to serve his original effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction. Although the defendant admitted that he had violated his probation, he challenges the trial court's decision to require him to serve the original sentences in incarceration. Discerning no error in the lower court's judgment, we affirm.

The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition, alleging that proof of counsel's substance abuse was a "late-arising" claim that involved due process concerns. The petitioner also challenged his hybrid sentence as to voluntary manslaughter as illegal and unconstitutional. We affirm the trial court's dismissal.

The petitioner, Shannon Pattum, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. He claims that his 1999 conviction for attempt to commit second degree murder is the result of ineffective assistance of counsel and an unknowing, involuntary guilty plea. The lower court disagreed and dismissed the petition. Upon our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm.

The petitioner was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated arson. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to second degree murder and setting fire to personal property. The petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. The post-conviction court denied the petitioner relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.