### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A s s i gne d on B r i e f s J ul y 21, 2004 STA TE O F TEN N ESSEE v . J A M ES FR A N K LI N R ED D EN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 15066 Charles Lee , Judge

No. M2003- 01768-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 20, 2004

A B edfor d Countyjury convicted the defe ndant, J ames Fr anklin Redden, of the ft of prope rty valued over $1,000. The trial court se ntence d him to eight y ear s incarc eration as a multiple offende r. On app e a l, the d e fe nd a nt c on te nd s th e e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio n. We d ism iss the app e a l du e to the un tim e ly fi lin g of a no tic e of app e a l. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; A ppe al D ism iss e d J OE G. R I L EY , S P . J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined. Donna L eig h Har g rove, D i s t ri ct P ublic Def ender ; and Andre w J ackson D earing, II I , Assistant District Public Defe nder, f or the a ppellant, J ames Franklin Redden. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Thomas E. Wil liams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Ge ne ra l; Wil lia m Mi c ha e l Mc Cow n, Di stric t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a ndMich ael Da vidRa nd le s, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION Th e de fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d o f the ft ov e r $ 1, 00 0, a

Cla ss D fe lon y , for st eal ing Ne lli e Mahaf fey ’s vehicle on Fe bruary 25, 2002. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 14-103, -105( 3). The trial court orde red the defe ndant to serve eig ht y ear s in confinement a s a multiple offende r. The de fenda nt filed a pro se not ice of appea l on J une 26, 2003, over seven months after the tr ia l c ou rt ’s e ntry

of its No ve mbe r 1 2, 20 02 , o rd e r d e nying the de fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n f or a ne w t ri a l. Def ense c ounsel subsequently filed a not i ce of appe al on J uly 22, 2003. Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Proc edure 4(a) provides that a notice of appe al must be filed within thirty day s of the judgme nt from which the a ppeal is take n. Howeve r, the a ppellate c ourt in a cr i m i n al case may wa ive the tim e ly fi lin g of a no tic e of app e a l “in the int e re st of jus tic e .” Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 4 (a ); see Cr itt e nd e n v . St a te , 9 78 S.W. 2d92 9, 93 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 8) . In th e c a se at ba r, the de fe nd a nt f

ile d h is notice of a

ppeal more than six months bey ond the thirty -day require ment. The re cord a nd the defe ndant’s brie f off

er no e x planation for the failu re t o fi l e a notice of appe al in a timely fashion.-2-

Moreove r, the de fenda n t h as n o t re quested that this court wa ive the timely filing of the notice of app e a l. Suffi ci en cy of the e vidence is the only issue raised by

the def endant on a

ppeal. Upon re vie wi ng the re c or d a ndthe app lic able la w, we c on c lud e thi s is su e is u tte rl y wi th out me ri t. There fore , we conclude the “intere st of j ustice” does not require a waiver of the t imely filing of the no tic e of app e a l. Acc ording ly , the appe al is dismis sed.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, SPECI AL J UDGE