### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs January 6, 200 4 CA RLO S WILLIA MS v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. P -27204 Bernie We inman, Judge

No. W2003-01175-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled March 4, 2004

Th e Ap pe lla

nt, Carl os Willi ams, a

pp e a ls the summa

ry dismis sa l of

his pr o s e pe tit ion

fo r p os tconviction re lief. On a

ppeal, Williams acknowledg es that the instant petition w as not timely filed; howeve r, he alleg es that a prior petition wa s timely delivere d to the appropr iate prison off icial for filing but a

ppare n t l y never

rec eived by

the Shelby

County Criminal Court C lerk. F or this rea son, we f ind it necessar

y to vacate the post-conviction court' s ruling and rema nd for a dete rmination of whether Wil liams’ prior petition was timely filed.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Cr im ina l C our t V ac at e d and R e m ande d.
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere dthe opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.
Carlos Wil liams, Pro Se , Tiptonvill e, Te nnessee
. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Michael Moore , Solicit o r Ge n eral; Bra den H. Bouc ek, As si st antAt to rney Gen eral ; W il li am L . Gib bo ns , Dis tr ict At to rney Gen eral ; an d E mi ly

B. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
P roce dural Hi story On May 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 , the Appellant pled guilty to espec ially

ag g ravated robbe ry

and second de g ree murder a

nd rec eived a

n eff ective thirte en-year

and si x -month sentence in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. The Appe llant is curre ntly inca rce rate d at the Nor

thwest Correc tional C o mp l e x i nL ak e C o un ty. On appe al, the Appe llant alleg es t he followingchronolog ical eve nts: On J anuar y 8, 2002, he place d his origina l petition for post-conviction re lief in the mail box of t he Nor thwest Correc tionalW e a r e c ons t r ai ned t o not e t hat p r epar at i on o f t he r ecor d by t he Shel by Co un t y Cri mi nal Co ur t Cl er k’ s of f i ce 1 i s i n compl et e. O n l y pa g es 1, 8, 9, a n d 10 of t h e Appel l an t ’ s pe t i t i on w er e i n cl u ded i n t h e r ec or d.
Ini t i al l y , we no t e t hat the i nst ant p et i t i o n fai l s t o c o m p l y w i t h the p roce d ural req ui rem ent for the t i m el y f i l i ng 2

o f t he no t ic e o f ap p e a l. See T enn
. R. Ap p. P

. 4. N onet hel es s , Rul e 4( a) , T enn es s ee R ul es of Ap pel l at e Procedur e, per mi t s t h i s cou r t t o wai v e t h i s re qu i r eme n t wh en i t i s i n t h e i n t er es t of ju s t i ce t o do s o. For t h i s r ea s on , t h e n ot i ce of appe al r equ i r eme n t i s w ai v ed t o pe r mi t r ev i ew of t h e i s s u e pr es en t ed. -2- fac ility for mailing to the Shelby

County Criminal Court C lerk’s of fice as re quired by

Supreme Court Rule 28, Section 2(g ). After a prolong ed period of waiting to r ece ive a response , t h e A p p ellant ma ile d a le tte r t o th e Cr imi na l Co ur t Cle rk ’s of

fi c e of She lby County inq uir inga s to the status of

his post-conviction petition. On Fe bruar y 6, 2003, the Appellant rec eived a response from the Criminal Court Clerk’s of

f ic e in f orming him that the orig inal petition for post-conviction re lief had ne ver be en rec eived with the a dded notation that, “[i] f you want, you may re- send it to us.” In acc ordanc e, the Appellant cause d a second petition f or post-conviction relief to be mailed to the C ri m i n al C o u rt Clerk’s off

ice on Ma

rch 3, 2003. O n M arc h 20, 2003, an orde r wa s entere d dismiss ing the Ap pe lla nt’ s sec on d pe tit ion

a s b e ing“ tim e -b arr e d. ” Th e Ap pe lla nt’ s pr o s e notice of appe al was 1 filed on April 25, 2003. The Appellant attache s various documents purportingto verify the above 2 a lle g atio ns
. Ana lys is The issue pre sented is g overne d by the Post-Conviction P roce dure A ct of 1995, whic h pr ov ide s th at, w ithc e rt a in e xce pti on s n ot ap pli c a ble he re , a pet iti on

fo r p os t- c onvic tio n r e lie f m us t be filed w ithin one y ear of the date of the final a ction of the hig hest state appe llate cour t to which an appea l is taken or, if no appea l is taken, within one y ear of the dat e o n wh i ch t h e judgment be c ame fi na l. Ten n. Code Ann. § 4 0- 30 -1 02 (a ) ( 20 03 ). Ad dit ion a lly , th e Ac t ma nd ate s th at a petition f or post-conviction relief be filed with the cler k of the court in which t h e c o n viction occur red. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-104( a) (2003). Howeve r, ac knowledg ing the difficulties a pr o sepr iso ne r m ig ht e nc ounte r in de liv e ri ng his pe tit ion to the a pp ro pr iate de sti natio n w ith in a pp lic a ble time limi tations, the Tennesse e Supreme Court a dopted Supreme Court Rule 28, sec tion 2(g ), which p r o v id e s th at a p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n p e ti ti o n f il e d b y a pr o s e p eti tioner who is incar cer ated is dee med filed whe n it is receive d by the appr opriate pr ison authorities for mailing . Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 28, § 2( g ); se e als o La k

e ith O. Lig

htf oo t v . S tate , No. 02C01-970 3 -C R-00129 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackso n , F e b

. 1 8 , 1 9 9 8 )

. T h e T e n n e s s e e Ru le s o f Cr im in a l Pr o c e d ur e s im il ar ly p r o v id e tha t if a pe tit ion fo r p os t- c onvic tio n r e lie f i s:
prepa red by or on behalf of a pro se litiga nt incarc erated in a cor

rec tional fac ility

and [i s] not rec eived by

the cler k of the c ourt until after the ti m e fi x ed for filing, filing shall be timely

if the pape rs wer e deliver ed to the appr opriate indivi du al at the co rr ec t i o n al fa ci l i ty

wi th i nth e t i m e f

i x edfo r f i l i n g.-3-

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 49(c). In eff ect, “ the jailer is . . . th e cl er k o f t h e [ co u rt ].” Pa ul v . S tate , 75 S

. W

. 3 d 9 2 6 , 9 2 9 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Houston v. Lack, 4 87 U. S. 2 66 , 2 70 , 1 08 S. Ct

. 2379, 2382 (1988))

. The re co rd b ef

o re us raises the fa ctual issue of whether the Appellant did timely file a petition for post-conviction re lief on January 8, 2002. Be cause this court has appe llate jurisdiction only , it is nece ssary that this fac tual alleg ation be resolved at the t rial court level. Acc ording ly , we re mand fo r a de te rm ina

tio n o f t his iss ue
. I f the po st- c onvic tio n co ur t fin ds tha t a pe tit ion wa s ti me ly filed, th en p ro ce ed i n gs co n s i s t en twi thth e P o s t -C o n v i ct i o nAc ts h o u l d fo l l o w. I f t h e p o s t -c o n v iction co urtfi n d s th atn o p et i t i o n wa s fi l ed o r th at n o p et i t i o n wa s t i m el y fi l ed , th en ap p ro p ri at e f

i n d i n gs should be enter ed and this ca use should be dismissed.

CO NC LU SION
B a se d upo n th e fo re g oin g , w e va c ate the or de r o f t he po st- c onvic tio n c ourt

summa ri ly d i s m i s s i n g th e p re s en tp et i t i o nfo r p o s t -c o n v i ct i o nre l i ef an d re m an d th i s ca se for

further proc ee d i n gs consistent with this opi nion.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE