### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs N ove m be r 16, 200 4 CHR ISTOP HERA. JOHNS ON v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty Nos. 241379, 241380, & 241880 Douglas A. Me yer, Judge

No. E2004-01122-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Dece m ber 15, 2004

The De fendant, Christopher A. J ohnson, seeks to a ppeal as of rig ht from the trial c ourt’s denia l of his “Petition t o Enforc e the Plea A g ree ment.” The State arg ues that this appea l should be dismis sed beca use an a ppeal a s of rig ht d o es n o t lie from a tria l court’s de nial of a pe tition t o enfor ce a plea a g re e me nt. We a g re e wi th the State ’s arg ume nt anddis mis s th is a pp e a l. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dism issed
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J

. , d el i v er ed the opinion of the c ourt, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and N OR MA MC G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. Christopher A. Johnson, C hattanoog a, Te nnessee , Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; J ohn H. B ledsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Wil liam H. Cox , District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION

On J anu ary

1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , th e D e f

e n d a n t p le dg u il ty

to a n dw a s c o n v ic te do f Cl a s s E f

e lony fo rge ry , Class A misdemeanor the ft, and Class A misdemeanor possession of drug para pherna lia. Pursuant to his plea ag ree ment, additional char g es ag ainst th e De fe n d an t wer e dismissed and he rec eived ag ree d concur

rent sentences of two y ear s for the f elony and ele ven months and twenty -nine day s for e ach misdeme anor. A lso pursuant to his plea ag ree ment, his sentenc es were suspended and he wa s p la c e d o n s up e rv ise d p ro batio n f or tw o y e ars . O n J a n u ary

1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e D e f

e n d a n t f i l e d h i s “ P e t i t i o n t o E n f

o r c e t h e P l e a

A g r e e m e n t

. ” In the petition, the De fe n d an t alleg ed that the State ha d brea ched his plea ag ree ment beca

use the Depa rtme n t o f Co r r e c ti o ncomputed his sentenc es as r unning c onsecutive to a

prior ten- y ear

sentenc e from which hewas on pa

role. The Def

endant a sserts that beca

use his se ntence has been c omputedT h e t r an s cr i pt f r om t h e D ef

en dan t ’ s g u i l t y pl ea h ea r i n g i s c on t ai n ed i n t h e r ec or d on appe al

. N o me n t i on of 1
t h e pr i or t en - y ea r s en t en ce , or t h e f ac t t h at D ef en dan t w as on pa r ol e, i s fou n d i n t h e t r an s cr i pt

. T h e D ef en dan t ’ s pe t i t i on t o ent er hi s gui l t y plea, al so i n t he reco rd o n ap p eal , l i kewis e f ai l s to m e n t i o n t he p ri o r s ent ence f rom whi ch t he D ef endan t was on par ol e. I t appear s t hat at t he t i me of t he D ef endan t ’ s gu i l t y pl eas , t he t r i al cour t was not awa r e t hat t he D ef endan t was on par ol e. -2- in this m anner , his pr obation period has been extended to N ovember 24, 2005, and “this is not what [P etitioner] pled to.”
T h e tr i a l c o u rt c o n d u c t e d a h e ar i n g o n t h e D e f e n d a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n . A t t h i s h e ar i n g , t he Sta te pointed out that the Def

endant had filed a post-conviction petition c halleng ing his convictions for thesa me re a so n s tate d inhis pe tit ion to en fo rc e his ple a a g re e me nt. Cou ns e l hadbe e n a pp oin te d to r e p r e s e n tt h e D e f

e n d a n ti n t h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , w h i c h w a s p e n d i n g i n t h e tr i a l c o u rt

. In e s s e n c e , th eD efe ndant ar g ued that the tria l court should order the Def endant’ s two-y ear

probationary sentenc e to be se rved c oncurr ently with the balance of the t en-y ear sentenc e he had been serving on parole , beca

use his plea a g ree ment did not provide that his two-y ear suspended se ntence would be serve d consec utive to the balance of the prior ten-y ear sentenc e. In denying the Def endant r elief, 1 t h e tr i a l j u d g e s t at e d , “ I’ mg o i n g t o d e n y t h e m o t i o n b e c au s e I d o n o th a v e au t h o r i t y t o g r a n ti t

. ” It is f ro m th e tria l c ou rt ’s ru lin g that th e De fe nd a nt s e e ks to a pp e a l a s o f rig ht.
A def endant in a c rimin al ac t i o n may g ener ally appeal as of rig ht from any judgme nt of conviction enter ed by

a trial c ourt. See Te nn. R. App. P. 3(b). I n addition, a def endant may

appea l as of right f

rom an o rd er denying or

revoking probation, and f rom a fina l judgment in a c riminal contempt, habe as cor

pus, ext radition, or post-convic tion procee ding. I d.
I n short, an appe al as of right lies from judgme nts or final orders in spec ified circ umstances which do not apply

in this case. See T enn. R. App. P. 3(b). An appeal as of right does not l ie from an orde r of a

trial court de ny ing a

petition to enforce a plea ag ree ment. See State v. Mary Christine Whit eside Cook, No. E2000-02802-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 846032 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, J uly 27, 2001).
F or there a so ns state d h e re in, wedis mis s th e app e a l.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE