### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE
STA TE O F TEN N ESSEE v. H EN R Y M A R TI N EZ
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 99-C- 2062 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr ., Judge

No. M2005- 01661-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Novem ber 23, 2005

On Dec ember

17, 1999, Def

endant, He nry

Martinez, pled g uiltyto the Cla s s A fe lony offe nse of conspirac y

to sell more than 300 pounds of marijuana. Unde r the n ego t i at ed plea ag ree ment, he rec eived a

sentenc e of f

ifteen ( 15) y ear s as a Rang e I , standard of fende r. Also, pursu an t to the ne g oti a te d p le a

a g re e me nt, the Sta te dis mis se d a c ha rg e of po sse ssi on wi th i nte nt t o d e liv e r s e ve nty (7 0) po un ds of

mari jua na wi thi n 100 0 fe e t of a s c ho ol, a s lo ng a s h e te sti fi e d tr uth fu lly a g a ins t hi s co-de fenda nts in the case. O n J uly 19, 2004, Def

endant f iled a motion to withdraw his g uiltyplea. The motion was denie d by the trial court a nd defe ndant has a ppeale d to this C ourt. The State ha s filed a motion to aff

irm the judg ment o f t h e t ri al court pursua nt to Rul e 20 of the Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als

. W e co n cl u de that the motion has merit, g rant same , and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Affir m e d P ur sua nt

to Rul e 20 of t he Te nne sse e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J ERRY L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.
Henry Martinez, Tiptonvill e, Te nnessee , pro s e . Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; B e nja min A. B a ll, As sis ta nt Att or ne y Ge ne ra l; and Victor

S. (Torry ) Johns on I I I , District Attorney Gene ral, a nd L isa Nay lo r, As s i stant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
I t a pp e ars fr om the re c or d th at Def e nd a nt t e sti fi e d tr

uth fu lly a g a ins t hi s c o- de fe nd a nts

. Howeve r, it also appea

rs t hat t he S tate, appr ox imately one (1) y ear

afte r De fenda nt’s g uiltyplea, r eindicted Def

endant on the c harg e of posse ssion with int ent to deliver s eventy (70) pounds of ma r ij u a n a in th e s c h o o l zo n e
. O n D e f e n d a n t’ s mo ti o n , th e tria l c o u r t d is mi s s e d th at indictment pursuant to the prohibition ag ainst double jeopar dy

.-2-

I n the ca se sub judice , th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r de ny ing the mot ion to withd ra w ple a of g uil ty se ts f orth the fi nd ing s o f f

a c t by the tr ia l c ou rt

a nd sta te s in its e nti re ty

a s f oll ow s: OR DE R
This cause came on to be hea rd on September

24, 2004, on the Def

endant’ s Mo tio n to With dr a w Pl e a of Gu ilt y . I t app e a rs to the Cou rt a s f oll ow s:
1. On Decem ber 17, 1 99 9, the De fe nd a nt e nte re d h is p le a in this c a se to conspirac y

[t o sell] over 300 pounds of marijuana and rece ived a 15 y ear sentenc e as a sta nd ard , Ra ng e I , 3 0 p e rc e nt o ff e nd e r. Th e Sta te a g re e d a s pa rt of thi s ple a

ba rg a in to dismi ss the char g e of posse ssion over 70 pounds of mar ijuana in a sc hool zone. 2. One y ear

later , on Dec ember

14, 2000, the State re -indicted the sc hool zone char g e in Case No. 2000-D-2259. This charg e wa s subsequently dismiss ed on the [D] efe ndant’s motion pursuant to the double jeopa rdy provisions in the Constit ution.
3. T o the extent that the subsequent cha rg e adve rsely

impacted the [D]e fe nd a nt’ s p aro le c on sid e ra tio n in his he a ri ng on De c e mbe r 5 , 20 01 , c a us ing him to h a ve ha d h is p arole c on sid e ratio n d e fe rr e d f or fi ve y e a rs , th e Cou rt

fi nd s th is impact to be manife stlyunfair.
4. Whil e the Court ha s no power to order the Boa rd of Par oles to rec onsider a ca se, the Court hopes that the B oard w ill give this order due conside ration.
5. The C o u rt m u s t deny the Def endant’ s Motion to W ithdraw his plea beca use the motion was not filed within the prope r time limit

. Entere d this the 6 day

of Oc tober, 2004. th
/s/

J. Ra nd a ll Wy a tt J . RANDAL

L WYATT, J UDGE Pursuant to Rule 32(f) of

the Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure, a trial court may

g rant a def endant ’s m o t i o n t o withdraw his or he r g uiltyplea a fter the defe ndant has be en sente nced, befor e judg ment become s fi n al , but only upon a showing of manife st injust ice. The pertinent provision of this rule, which is applica ble in this case, is that the motion to withdraw the g uiltyplea must have bee n filed bef

ore the judgme nt beca me final. T en n
. R

. Crim. P. 32(f). A trial cour t’s judgme nt becomes final thirty (30) day s afte r i ts entry unless a timely

notice of a

ppeal or specifie d post-trial motion is fil ed. See Te nn . R. App . P. 4( a ) a nd (c ); Sta te v . P e nd e rg ra ss , 937 S.W .2d 834, 837 (Tenn. 1996) . There is no indication in the recor d that any motion was filed prev en t ing the judgme nt from bec oming f inal thirty (30) day s afte r Decembe r 17, 1999. The motion t o withdraw-3-

the g uiltyplea was filed over f our (4) y ear s after

the judg ment beca me final. Eve n if the motion was trea ted as a

petition for pos t-conviction relief, i t was not filed within one y ear of the da te on which the judg ment beca me final, a nd there fore , is barre d by the s tatute of limitations. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( a) ( 2003).
De fe nd a nt i s n ot e nti tle d to re lie f i n th is a pp e a l.
CO NC LU SION The judg ment rende re d by the trial court in this case was in a pr ocee ding be fore the trial judge without a jury , the judg ment is not a determination o f gu ilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the finding s of the trial court. No error of law r equiring a re versa l of the judgme nt is appare nt on the rec ord. Acc ording ly , the judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed pur suant to R ule 20 of

the Rul e s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

_________________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE