1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

JAME S BEASL EY v. T ONY PARKER, W ARDEN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty

No. 9728 Jon K. Blackwood , Judge

No. W2004-01899-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 22, 2005

The Petitioner James Be asley appea ls the trial court' s denial o f h i s petition for habe as cor pus ad testificandum. The State has filed a motion re questing that this Court aff irm the trial court' s denial of re lief pursua nt to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. An appea l a s of rig ht does not exis t from a de nial of a pe tition for habea s corpus a d testificandum. Ac cordi n gl y , t h e abovecaptioned a

ppeal is dismissed.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and J.C. M C LIN , J J . joined.
J ames B easle y , pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; K athy D. Asling er, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Jame s Beasl ey , is c ur re ntl y c on fi ne d a s a n in mate in the No rthw e st Correc tional Compl ex in Ti ptonville, Tennessee . On J u l y7, 2004, Petitioner filed a “ Petition for Writ of Habea s Corpus Ad Testifica ndum” in the Har deman County Circuit Court. The basis of the2

petition was to require the war den of Northwe st Corr ectional Complex to transport Petitioner to the n ex t s c h e d u l e d s es s i o n o f t h e H ar d em an C o u n t y Gr an d J u ryfo r t h e p u rp o s e o f “ p ro v i d [ i n g] testimony ” in any

“tentative[ly ] scheduled h ea ri n g p ertaining to the c ase of Jame s Beasley v. Lawrence Mc Kinney. ” The trial court dism issed the petit ion on J uly 22, 2004. A notice of appea l document wa s timelyfiled to the Tennessee Court of A ppeals. On January 7, 2005, the Tenne ssee Court of Appea ls entere d an orde r transf erring this matter to this Court. Although not contained in the re cord be fore this Court, we are provided a summary of the circ umstances anticipating the petition f rom the Petitioner’s brief . As alleg ed by Petitioner, a fe llow inm a te sta

bb e d th e Pe tit ion e r se ve ra l tim e s re su lti ng in “ inj urie s [that] c re a te d li fethr e a te nin g c ha in of eve nts.” Petitioner aver s that Depa rtment of Corre ction officia ls “flag rantly ref used to prosec ute” this inm ate. Petit ioner then soug ht an orde r fr om the trial court r equiring that the prison war den de liv e r the Pe tit ion e r b e fo retheg randjury to “ pr ov idete sti mon y ” a ndse e k a n in dic tme nt a g a ins t his attacke r.
Th e State ha s f

ile d a mot ion to af

fi rm the low e r co urt’ s dism iss a l in a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. Th e State a lso re qu e sts pe rm iss ionto l a te fi le thi s mo tio n, statin g that this ma tte r wa s not trans fe rr e d to theCou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls u nti l J anuary 7, 2005, the same date as a n appellee ’s brief was due in the Court of Appeals. The State’s reque st for permission t o late file its brief is GRANTED, if the ple ading is indeed late. In its mot ion to affirm, the State arg ues that thereis no appea l as of rig ht from the lower court’s or der. Al t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e tr i a l c o u rtd i d n o te rr b y d e n y i n g t h e p e t i t i o n a s t h e r e is nothing c ontained in the petition to indicate that Petitioner’s testimony was necessa ry for a criminal p ro ce ed i n g.
Rul e 3, Te nn e sse e Rul e s of Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re , pro vid e s for a n ap pe a l as of ri g ht, no t on ly from a f inal judgme nt of conviction, but also from an order denying or

revoking probation and f

rom a f i n al j u d gm en ti n a cr i m i n al co n t em p t , h ab ea s co rp u s , ex tra d i t i o n , o r p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n p ro ce ed i n g. Rule 3 “does not, how ever , include an appea l f rom an orde r denying a

‘petition for writ of habea s corpus a d testificandum,’ a writ used to bring a prisoner to court to testify .” Richard Lynn Norton
v . S tate , No.E2002-02147- CCA-R10-CO (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Sept. 13, 2002) ( order), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. D ec. 2, 2002) , reh’g de nied , (T e nn
. Jan. 27 , 2 00 3) ; se e als o Ri c ha rd L ynn Norton v . S tate , N o
. E 2 0 0 2

- 0 2 1 4 5

- CC A

- R3

- CO ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. , a t Kn o xv il le , Ju l. 14, 2004) ( order), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. N ov. 15, 2004).
Thereis no appea l as of rig ht from the lower court’s denial of a petition for writ of habea s corpus a d testificandum. More over, w hile the common law writ of certiorari may be g rante d in case s wher e (1) an infe rior tribunal ha s exceede d its jurisdi ction or is acting illega lly and (2) there is no other plain, spee dy , or ade quate r emedy , s e e Sta te v . Le ath , 977 S.W .2d 132, 135 (Tenn. 1998) ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 8-101, this Court finds no basis for g ranting a writ of ce rtiorari in this case
.3

B a se d u po n th e fo re g oin g , th is C ou rt c on c lud e s th a t it

is w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to e nte rt a in the above -ca

ptioned appea l. Accor dingly , the appe al is dismis sed.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE