### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs D ec em be r 13, 200 5 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. EF RA IN M UR ILLO R AM IREZ

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for G ree ne County No. 04CR201 Jam es E. Beckner, Judge

No. E2005-00550-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Janu ary 23, 2006

The de fendant, Efrain M u ri l lo Ramirez, who is serving an eig ht-y ear Depa rtment of Corre ction sentenc e for

a G re en e County

Criminal Court juryconviction of possession of one -half or more g rams o f c oc a inewi th i nte nt t o s e ll o r d e liv e r, app e a ls an d ch a lle ng e s the tria l c ou rt ’s de nial of his motion to s uppress the c ocaine seized from hi s automobile. Be causethe suppression issue has be en waived by

the failure to file a timely motion for new tria l, the judgme nt is affirmed. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d. J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined. Gre g W. Eichelman, District Public Defe nder; a n d Ethel Rhodes, Assistant District Publi c De fende r, f o r th e A p p e ll a n t, E f

r a inM u r il lo Rami r e z. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; C. B e rk e le y

B e ll, Jr., Di stric t A tto rn e y Ge ne ral; andCe c il M ill s, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the A ppellee, State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION Ag g rieve d of the police office rs’ seizure of cocaine from hi s p arked, unocc upied automobile following detec tion by a trained nar cot i cs -s n i ff

ing dog , the def

endant f iled a pre trial motion to s uppress the e vidence . After a hea ring , the t rial court denied the motion. There fore , the caseproce eded to tria l and, ultimately , to a conviction and the imposit ion of the e ight- y ear sentenc e. The de fendant’s issues on appea l relate solely to the propriety of the trial court’ s denial of the motion to s up pr e ss. I n h is b ri e f, thede fe nd a nt a sk s f or a ne w t ri a l. The re cord be fore us ref

lects that the trial court’s judgme nt of conviction was e ntere d on J anuary

13, 2005. The de nial of the suppre ssion motion was raised i n a mot ion for ne w trial, but-2-

the motion was not f

iled until F ebrua

ry 15, 2005. As such, the motion for new tria l was late. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33(b) (spec ify ing a period of 30 day s for filing a motion for new trial). [I ]n all ca s es t ried by

a jury , no issue prese nted for r eview sha ll be predic ated upon e rror in the admis sion or ex clusion of evidence . . . or other g round upon which a new trial is soug ht, unle ss the same wa s specific ally

stated in a motion for a new trial; otherwise such issues will be treated as waived. Tenn. R. A pp. P. 3( e). The rule is mandatory ; e x tensions of time f or filing the motion for new tria l areno t a llo we d. Te nn . R. Crim. P. 4 5( b) ; Sta te v . M ar tin , 940 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997)

. Acc ording ly , the suppre s s io nissue is waived, and the judg ment of the Criminal Court is affirme d.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE