### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 26, 2001 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARY CHRISTINE WHITESIDE COOK

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County No. 86-28 R. Steven Bebb, Judge

No. E2000-02802-CCA-R3-CD July 27, 2001
The defendant, Mary Christine Whiteside Cook, seeks to appeal as of right from the t rial court’s denying her petition to enf

orce a plea bar

gain agreem

ent and her requ

est for a writ of habeas corpu

s. S he asserts t

hat pursuant to the agreement, she is entitled to immediate release from her imprisonment,

which results from her 1986 conviction upon her plea of gui

lty to first degree murder. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal because of the lack of jurisdiction.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
J OSEPH M. T IPTON , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R . and R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER , JJ., joined. Charles C. Morrow, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Mary Christine Whiteside Cook.
Paul G. S umm ers , At tor ney G ener al a nd R epo rte r; J ohn H. Bl eds oe, Ass ist ant Att orn ey Gen eral; Jerry N. Estes, District Attorney General; and Sandra N .C. Donaghy , Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
The defendant was charged in 1985 with the murder,conspiracy to murder, and the procuring of codefendants to

assault with int ent to c omm it f irs t de gree mur der o f th e vi cti m, J udi th P enl ey. Pursuant to awritten plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to first degree murder in April 1986. The agreement provides that the state dismiss the other charges against the defenda nt andstates the following:
Fu rther , the State of Tennessee agrees that, after the defendant’s

serviceof ten years, the State will not object to or in any wa y hinder, by oral or written communication, the defendant’s efforts, if any

, to-2- seek executive clemency, commutation of sentence, or other release from custody. The defendant is currently serving the life sentence resulting from this conviction.
The defendant filed a petition to enforce her plea bargain agr

eement, claiming

that the state has violated its agreement not to object to or hinder her efforts to s eek cl emency, sentence commutation, or other release from custody. In the petition, she allege s that although she sought executive clemency or commutation of her sentence

, the state has declined to consider either. She also alleges that the state opposed her application to the federal district court regarding this matter, resulting in the dismissal of her application. She argues that the only remedy available should b e specific performance of

the agreemen

t and requests her

immediate

release. I n the trial court, t

he state responded

that the agr ee ment did not bind the e ntire state of Te

nnessee, pointing

to the express language of the agreement, which provides that the “agreement will be binding upon the State of Tennessee, as p ros ecut or i n th is c ase, and the defe nda nt, Mar y Chri stin e Whi tesid e Cook .” It asserted that the state, as a

prosecutor in the case, has complied with the terms of the agreement. On appeal, the defendant adds the claim that her sentence is illegal. She contends that th e sentence is, therefore, void.
As for our jurisdiction over this appeal, the state asserts that the defendant was not entitled to an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(b), T.R.A.P., because she waived her right to appeal i

n the plea b argain and bec ause a petition to enforce a plea agreement is not listed in the Rule as an action from which an appeal as of right lies. It also asserts that the sentence is not void, thereby foreclosing the viability

of the appeal thr

ough a writ of ce

rtiorari. See Jerry L.

Cox v. State , No. E2 000-02044-CCA-R3-

PC, Sullivan County (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2001). Moreover, i t contends that the p

leadings fail

to meet the statutory requirements for a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which must be strictly followed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29 -21-107; Archer v. St

ate , 851 S.W.2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993). Finally, the state notes that no written order deny ing the defendant’s petition was entered by

the trial court, a

lthough it notes that the transcript of thetrial court ’s rulings is in the record.
We agree with the

state’s assessme

nts i n this case. An app

eal as of right p

ursuant to Rule 3(b), T.R.A.P., lies from judgme nts or final order s in specified cir

cumstances whic

h do not apply in this case other than habeas corpus actions. However, e ven viewing the def

endant’s case a

s a habeas corpus ca se, the lack of en try of a fin

al judgment or or

der precludes u

s from deciding t

his case on ap peal. Ultimately, we see no circumstance in the record that would allow us to ac cept jurisdiction.
In considera

tion of the foreg

oing, we dismiss the

appeal.

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE