IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville July 24, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EDGAR C. SALINAS

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County

No. 18090 Forest A. Durard, Jr., Judge

___________________________________

No. M2018-00158-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Appellant, Edgar C. Salinas, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s denial of 

his petition for a writ of certiorari seeking relief from his two convictions of aggravated 

sexual battery and resulting effective twenty-two-year sentence. Based upon the record 

and the parties’ briefs, the appeal is dismissed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT L.

HOLLOWAY, JR., and J. ROSS DYER, JJ., joined.

Edgar C. Salinas, Pro Se, Hartsville, Tennessee.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Counsel;

Robert James Carter, District Attorney General; and Mike Randles, Assistant District 

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Factual Background

On February 25, 2014, the General Sessions Court of Bedford County issued an 

arrest warrant for the Appellant, charging him with rape of a child. On March 11, 2014, 

the general sessions court issued a second arrest warrant, again charging the Appellant 

with rape of a child. The record reflects that on November 16, 2015, the Appellant pled 

guilty in the Circuit Court of Bedford County to two counts of aggravated sexual battery 

and received concurrent eleven-year sentences. 

On December 4, 2017, the Appellant filed a “PETITION FOR COMMON LAW 

WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND SUPERSEDEAS” in which he argued that his case 

09/27/2018
- 2 -

should be dismissed for lack of due process because the arrest warrants were based on 

affidavits that failed to establish probable cause. The Appellant attached the affidavits 

and arrest warrants to his petition. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the 

Appellant’s guilty pleas precluded relief. The trial court explained,

In State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540[, 542] (Tenn. 1999), it was 

reiterated the ramifications of entering a plea of guilty. It was 

held “that the voluntary entry of an informed and counseled 

plea constitutes an admission of all the facts necessary to 

convict and waives all non-jurisdictional defects and 

constitutional irregularities which may have existed prior to 

the entry of the guilty plea.” 

Thus, the trial court found that regardless of any infirmities in the affidavits of complaint, 

the infirmities were “cured” by the entry of the guilty pleas. The trial court then noted, 

“Curiously, petitioner does not seem to allege his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily 

entered or that he was not properly ‘counseled’ upon the ramification of the plea or that 

this issue was ever presented to the General Sessions judge to cure any alleged 

deficiencies.” 

II. Analysis

On appeal, the Appellant contends that he is entitled to certiorari relief and should 

be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. Taking a cue from the trial court, he now claims 

that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his pleas because they were based upon 

the ineffective assistance of counsel in that trial counsel failed to protect him from “an 

erroneous and improper prosecution” that resulted from the invalid arrest warrants. The 

State argues that we must dismiss the appeal because a defendant has no appeal as of 

right from a writ of certiorari. We agree with the State.

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b) (2018) provides as follows:

In criminal actions an appeal as of right by a defendant lies 

from any judgment of conviction entered by a trial court from 

which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court or Court of 

Criminal Appeals: (1) on a plea of not guilty; and (2) on a 

plea of guilty or nolo contendere, if the defendant entered into 

a plea agreement but explicitly reserved the right to appeal a 

certified question of law dispositive of the case pursuant to 

and in compliance with the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2)(A) 

or (D) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, or if the 
- 3 -

defendant seeks review of the sentence and there was no plea 

agreement concerning the sentence, or if the issues presented 

for review were not waived as a matter of law by the plea of 

guilty or nolo contendere and if such issues are apparent from 

the record of the proceedings already had. The defendant 

may also appeal as of right from an order denying or revoking 

probation, an order or judgment entered pursuant to Rule 36 

or Rule 36.1, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, from a 

final judgment in a criminal contempt, habeas corpus, 

extradition, or post-conviction proceeding, from a final order 

on a request for expunction, and from the denial of a motion 

to withdraw a guilty plea under Tennessee Rules of Criminal 

Procedure 32(f).

As this court noted in Craig O. Majors v. State, No. M2013-01889-CCA-R3-HC, 2014 

WL 2547801, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 4, 2014), an appeal of the denial 

of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not one of the enumerated actions from which a 

defendant may appeal as of right under Rule 3(b). Accordingly, a defendant does not 

have an appeal as of right from a trial court’s order denying a petition for a writ of 

certiorari, and this court does not have jurisdiction over the Appellant’s appeal. Id.

Moreover, Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-101 provides for a writ of 

certiorari as follows:

A writ of certiorari may be granted whenever authorized by 

law, and also in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or 

officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the 

jurisdiction conferred, or is acting illegally, when, in the 

judgment of the court, there is no other plain, speedy, or 

adequate remedy. This section does not apply to actions 

governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Petitioner filed his petition for a writ of certiorari in the Bedford County Circuit 

Court, not a superior court, to review a judgment that it had issued previously. See Craig 

O. Majors, No. M2013-01889-CCA-R3-HC, 2014 WL 2547801, at *1. However, a 

petitioner “may not invoke a writ of certiorari to secure the trial court’s review of its own 

judgment.” Id. (citing Mack Transou v. State, No. W2010-01378-CCA-R3-CO, 2011 

WL 2176524, *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, June 1, 2011); State v. John H. Parker, 

No. W2004-00911-CCA-R3-CO, 2005 WL 850394, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, 

Apr. 13, 2005)). 
- 4 -

III. Conclusion

Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Appellant’s 

appeal must be dismissed.

_________________________________

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE