IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs November 7, 2017

WARREN PRATCHER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 14-05852 J. Robert Carter, Jr., Judge

No. W2017-00300-CCA-R3-PC

The Petitioner, Warren Pratcher, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s 

summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that 

the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his second petition for post-conviction relief 

on the basis that his first petition had been withdrawn with prejudice. Discerning no 

error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD 

WITT, JR., and ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JJ., joined.

Warren Pratcher, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrew C. Coulam, Assistant 

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Carrie Shelton Bush, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On November 6, 2015, the Petitioner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

possess 300 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and was sentenced to fifteen 

years as a mitigated offender. On December 3, 2015, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition 

for post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed for the Petitioner, and an amended 

petition was filed.

However, on June 1, 2016, the Petitioner withdrew his petitions. The postconviction court dismissed the petitions, noting that it did so “following [the] Petitioner’s 

statements on the record that he was choosing to withdraw his petition.” The postconviction court’s order dismissing the petitions stated that it was “final” and that the 

01/10/2018
-2-

post-conviction court “had instructed [the] Petitioner that he [could] not raise these issues 

again” because “withdrawal of the petition[s] constitute[d] a waiver of [the] issues.”

The Petitioner gave a second pro se petition for post-conviction relief to the 

appropriate prison officials on November 3, 2016, and it was filed on November 16, 

2016. On January 9, 2017, the post-conviction court entered a written order summarily 

dismissing the petition. The order stated that the Petitioner had the assistance of counsel 

when he withdrew his first petition and that the Petitioner had “communicated his desire 

to withdraw” his petition “in person” to the post-conviction court. The order further 

stated that the Petitioner had been “advised that his withdrawal would constitute a waiver 

of the issues and [that] he agreed that the dismissal of his petition would be ‘final.’”

The Petitioner now appeals to this court. The Petitioner contends that the postconviction court erred in concluding that his first petition was dismissed with prejudice. 

The Petitioner further contends that he was unaware when he withdrew the first petition 

that it would be dismissed with prejudice. The State responds that the post-conviction 

court did not err in summarily dismissing the Petitioner’s second petition.

The Post-Conviction Procedure Act “contemplates the filing of only one [] petition 

for post-conviction relief,” and post-conviction courts are to summarily dismiss “any 

second or subsequent petition” “[i]f a prior petition has been filed which was resolved on 

the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(c). 

Despite this, a petitioner “may withdraw a petition at any time prior to the hearing 

without prejudice to any rights to refile.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-109(c).

However, the right to post-conviction review can be waived by a petitioner. 

Serrano v. State, 133 S.W.3d 599, 604 (Tenn. 2004). A petitioner may waive his right to 

post-conviction review by agreeing that the withdrawal of his petition will be with 

prejudice. Chad Howard Brooks v. State, No. E2008-00084-CCA-R3-PC, 2010 WL 

960330, at *3-4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 17, 2010). Based upon the record before us, the 

Petitioner waived his right to post-conviction review by agreeing to withdraw his original 

post-conviction petition with prejudice.

To the extent that the Petitioner challenges the post-conviction court’s finding that 

he was aware that he was withdrawing his original petition with prejudice, we note that 

the appellate record contains only the post-conviction court’s orders and does not contain 

a transcript of the hearing at which the Petitioner withdrew his original petition. Failure 

to include the necessary transcripts for our review forces this court to “conclusively 

presume that the ruling of the [post-conviction] judge was correct.” State v. Draper, 800 

S.W.2d 489, 493 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). As such, we must presume that the postconviction court correctly found that the Petitioner was aware that he was withdrawing 
-3-

his original petition with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s 

summary dismissal of the Petitioner’s second petition for post-conviction relief.

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of 

the post-conviction court is affirmed.

_________________________________

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE