### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

JOE CLARK MITC HELL v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Maury County No. M2322 Ste lla Hargrove, Judge

No. M2005- 00229-CCA -R3-C O - F iled Novem ber 21, 2005

The Petitioner, Joe Clark Mitchell, appea ls the trial co u rt’s denia l of his motion t o dismiss and expunge. T h e S t at e has filed a motion reque sting that the Court a ffirm the tria l court’s de nial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. W e find the State’ s motion has merit. Acc ording ly , the motion is gra nted and the a ppeal is af

firmed pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D A VI D H. W EL L ES , and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J , joined.

J oe Clark Mitche ll, pro se, Clifton, Tennessee

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Bre nt C. Cherry , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Se pte mbe r 2 5, 19 86 , th e Pe tit ion e r w a s c on vic te d o f t wo c ou nts of a g g ra va te d a ssa

ult , two counts of armed robbery , two counts of ag g ravated kidnapping , one count of ar son, one count of first deg ree burg lary , and two counts of ag g ravated ra pe. The trial court imposed the f ollowing sentenc es: (1) ten y ear s for each of the agg ravated assault conviction; (2) life for e ach of the armed robbery convictions; (2) life for eac h of the ag g ravated kidnapping convictions; (3) twe nty -one y ear s for the a rson conviction; (4) f

ifteen y ear s for the bur g lary convictions; and (5 ) l i fe fo r each of the ag g ravated ra

pe convic tions. The Petitioner appea led his conviction, and this Court held that there was ins u f f ic ie n t e v idence prese nted to support one of the Petitioner’s convictions for a g g ravated ra pe but held t hat t he evidence was suffic ient to support a conviction of simple ra pe as a lesser inc luded offe nse. State v. J oe Clark Mitche ll, No. 87-152-I I I , 1988 WL 32362, at *1 (Te nn. Crim App. Apr. 7, 1988), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. J une 27, 1988). Ac cording ly , the Court reduc ed the c onviction-2-

to s imp le ra

pe a nd imp os e d a se nte nc e of thi rt e e n y e ars fo r tha t of fe ns e

. I d. Th e Cou rt

a ff ir me d a ll the other c onvictions and sentenc es.
On May 3, 2004, the Petitioner filed a pro se “Motion to Dismis s and Expunge the Record.” I n that motion, the Petit ioner a lleg ed that this Court was without jurisdiction to modify his sentence from ag g ravated rape t o simple rape beca use, by finding him g uilty of t he g reater off ense, the jury found him not guilty

of the lesse r-include d offe nse. The State re sponded by moving f or summary dis mis sa l a ndre qu e sti ng that th e tr ia l c ou rt iss ue sa nc tio ns a g a ins t the Pe tit ion e r fo r fi lin g a c le arl y frivolous and unfounde d pleading . On M ay 25, 2004, the trial court summarily denied the Petitioner’s motion, and it ordere d that the Petitioner be sanc tioned by pay ing c ourt costs associa ted with the filing of

the motion. On J une 9, 2004, the P etitioner filed a “Motion to rec onsider or, in the Alterna tive, a Notice of Appe al.” On January 7, 2005, t h e t rial court summarily dismiss ed the motion as a frivolous filing . The De fenda nt filed a notice of appe al on J anuary 20, 2005.

On app e a l, the Pe tit ion e r a g a in as se rt s tha t th is C ou rt imp ro pe rl y

fo un d h im g uil ty

of simple rape when the jury

found hi m not guilty

of simple rape . He sug g est that, by finding him guilty

of the g re a te r o ff

e ns e of a g g rava te d r ape , th e jury fo un d h im n ot g uil ty

of the le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e of ra pe. The ref

ore, he asserts that this C ourt could not proper ly find him guilty

of simple rape

.
I n 2002, the P etitioner filed a habeas corpus petition asserting sim ilar claims. S ee Joe Clark Mitchell, No. M2002-03011-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL 22243287 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 17, 2003), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Dec. 29, 2003). There, the Petitioner a sserted tha t this C ourt’s re duction of the sec ond r a

p e o f fensefrom ag g ravated ra

pe to simple rape violated the constitutional prohibition ag ainst double jeopar dy . I d. at * 2

. T h e P etitioner ar g ued that by convicting him of the g reater char g e, the jury

acquitted him of a ll lesser included of fense s of ag g ravated ra

pe, depriving this Court of jurisdiction to reduce his conviction to simple rape

. I d. I n response to this arg ument, this Court found t hat, even if the P etitioner’s claims wer e true, it would rende r hi s convictions voidable rather than void, and, ther efor e, not entitled to habea s corpus re lief. I d. at *3.
We note that, acc ording to Tennesse e Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 3( b), A d efe ndant may appea l as of rig ht from a judgme nt of conviction upon a ple a of not g uilty , in certain circ umstances in which there has bee n a plea of g uiltyor nolo contende re, or “fr om an orde r denying or revoking pr ob a tio n, a ndfr om a

fi na l jud g me nt i n a

c ri min a l c on te mpt , h abe a s c or pu s, e xtra dit ion , o r p os tc on vic tio n p ro c e e din g .” I d. Th e Pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n in thi s c a se do e s n ot mee t any of the se require ments. There fore , this appeal is not proper ly befor e the Court. Further, even w ere this Court to consider his motion as one for post-conviction re lief, it is tim e barre d beca use it was filed f

ive y e ars a ft e r the Pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n. Se e Te nn

. Cod e An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 02 ; State v. Da n E . D ur e ll, No. E2004-03014- CCA-R3-CD, No. 2005 WL 1584419, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. J uly 7, 2005), no. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed

. Ad dit ion a lly , in Sta te v. Ad le r, 92 S.W. 3d39 7 ( Te nn

. 20 02 ), the Sup re me Cou rt sp e c if ic a lly held, “B eca

use of the plain and unambig uous lang uag e of [Appellate Proc edure ] R ules 3(b) a nd 3(c) , we c onclude that ne ither the State nor a criminal defe ndant has the authority to appea l as of rig ht an-3-

unfavor able r

uling c oncerning an expungeme nt or der under Rule 3.” I d. at 401. The Alde r Court allowed the a

ppeal to proce ed as a

petition for wri t of

c e rti or ar i , but under c ircumstance s that are not presente d by

the ca se cur

rently befor e us.

F ina lly , th is C ou rt ha s a lr e a dy a dd re sse d th e e xac t is su e that th e Pe tit ion e r n ow pr e se nts in the context of a habe as cor pus petition. This C ourt determined that this iss ue did not entitle the Petitioner to habea s corpus re lief.

Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g ment of the tr ia l c ou rt

is a ff ir me d in
a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE