# FILED
February 9, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE NOVEMBER 1998 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9710-CR-00454 ) vs. ) W as hin gto n C ou nty ) ROY D. NELSON, JR., ) Hon. Lynn W. Brown, Judge ) Ap pe llan t. ) (Burglary, Aggravated Burglar y,

) Aggravated Arson, Possession of Marijuana)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: DONALD E. SPURRELL JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attor ney at Law Attor ney General & Reporter 12 8 E. M ark et S t. Johnson City, TN 37604 ELIZABETH B. MAR NEY Assist ant Att orney General 425 Fift h Ave. N., 2d Fl oor Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 DAVID CROCKETT Distr ict Attor ney General JOE C. CRUMLEY Asst. Di str ict Attor ney General P.O. Box 38 Jonesborough, TN 37659

OPINION FILED:________________ AFFIRMED JAMES CURWOOD WIT T, JR., JUDGE1 Total fines of $60,350 were i mposed. 2 OPINION The de fen da nt, R oy D. N els on, stands convicted of burglary, aggravated burglar y, aggravated arsonan

d p os se ss ion of m ariju an a a s a res ult o f his effo rts to blow up his ex- wife' s home. Nelson received hi s convict ionsat th e c on clu sio n o f a ju ry t rial in th e W as hin gto n C ou nty C rim ina l C ou rt. A R an ge III offe nd er, Nelson is p

res en tly s erv ing an effe ctiv e 6 2-y ea r se nte nc e in the Department

of Correcti on for hi s c

rimes. 1 In th

is d irec t ap pe al, N els on cla im s h e w as im pro pe rly convict ed o f ag gra va ted ars on be ca us e h e, r ath er t ha n a no the r pe rso n, s uffe red the se riou s b od ily injury relie d u po n to ele va te th e o ffen se from ars on to a gg rav ate d a rso n. Having revi ewed the appell ate recor d, t he arguments of the pa rties an d th e a pp lica ble law , w e a ffirm the jud gm en t of th e trial c ou rt.

I Upon init ial revi ew of

the rec ord , w e discover ed that Nelson's noti ce of appeal was filed two and a h alf m on ths afte r the trial c ou rt en tere d its ord er o ve rruling the m otio n fo r ne w trial. In order to be time ly, the n otice o f app eal s hou ld ha ve b een filed an d re ceive d by the cl erk of t he tri al
cou rt withi n 30 days aft er entr y of t he order denyi ng a new tri al. Tenn . R . Ap p. P . 4(a ), (c ). If a defendant fails

to c om ply w ith the R ule s o f Ap pe llate Pr oc ed ure , the ap pe llate co urt may w aiv e tim ely filing in th e inter est of j usti ce. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). Equally, the appell ate court may cho ose no t to allo w an un tim ely ap pe al in a c rim ina l ca se . See, e.g. , State v. Cleotha Nash , No . 02C 01-9 701 -CC
00026, sli p op. at3 (

Te nn . C rim . Ap p., J ac ks on, Fe b. 1 8, 1 99 8), perm. app. deni ed

(Te nn. 1 998 ); S tate v. Austi n Kipli ng Strat ton , N o. 0 1C 01 -96 11 -C C -00 47 2, s lip o p. a t 2-3 (T en n. C rim . Ap p . , N as hv ille, D ec . 4, 1 99 7).

Unlike many cases

in which a not ice of ap

pe al is un tim ely filed , N els on ha s n ot file d
a m otio n to w aiv e tim ely fil ing of th e n otic e o f ap pe al o r an y s im ilar ple ad ing . T yp ica lly, s uc h filin g would co nta in a ck no w led gm en t tha t the no tice of a pp ea l w as no t tim ely fi led and would i nclude

veri fi ed3

fact ual and/or l egal asserti ons why the interest s of just ice dict ate that we should waive tim ely filing of the noti ce of appea l. See Cleotha Nash , slip op . at 3 (a ppe al dism issed wh ere n either reco rd no r allega tion by the d efen dan t prov ided sufficien t bas is for w aive r of tim ely filing o f notice of ap pea l).

D es pite Nelson's shortcoming in t his regard, we som ewhat reluct antly w

aive the tim el y filing requir ement

for t he notice of appeal. The issue Nelsonhas rais ed on appeal i s a novel one, and
as best we can tel l, is an i ssue of fi rst i mpression in Tennessee. It is bett er addressed now on direct appeal, rat he r th an in a de lay ed ap pe al fo llow ing a post-conv ict ion case i n which defense counsel might be fou nd ine ffec tive for fa iling to p erfe ct a tim ely dire ct a pp ea l. I n the i nteres t of ju

stic e, w e waive the requir ement of timely fi li ng of t he noti ce of appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 4. We adm onish counsel and other appeali ng parti es, ho w ev er, tha t this res ult is no t a p reo rda ine d c on clu sio n, and we expect acknowledgm

ent and an explanati on when co unsel has fai led to comply w i th t he Rules of Appellat e Procedure.

II

Nelson cla im s h is a gg rav ate d a rso n c on vic tion ca nn ot b e s us tain ed be ca us e th e seri ous bo dil y in jur y u se d t o e lev at e t he cr im e f ro m sim ple ar so n w as his ow n, no t a no th er pe rs on 's. In pe rtine nt p art, " [a] p ers on co m m its a gg rav ate d a rso n w ho co m m its arson as defi ned in § 39-14- 301
or § 39-14-303 .

. . [w]hen any person , i ncludi ng fi ref ighters and law enfo rcem ent o fficials, suffe

rs seri ous bodil y inj ury as a resul t ofthe fi re or expl osion. " Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-302(a) (2) ( 1997) (em ph as is added). " 'Person' incl udes

the sin gu lar an d p lura l an d m ea ns an d in clu de s a ny ind ivid ua l, firm, pa rtne rsh ip, c op artn ers hip , as so cia tion, co rpo rati on, governmental subdi visi on or agency, or other organizat ion or

other l egal ent it y, or any

agent or ser vant t hereof[ .] " Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11- 106 (a)(27 ) (199 7).

The ag gra va ted ars on sta tute is a no m alo us . E lse w he re in th e c rim ina l code, off enses which are aggravat ed

or es pe cia lly agg rava ted b y the infliction o f bod ily injury o r serio us b odily in jury4

are w ord ed diffe ren tly. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-10 2 (a)(1)(A ) (1 99 7) ( ag gra va ted as sa ult) (" seri ous bodil y inj ury to anot her") ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 304(a)( 4) (1997) (ag gravated kidnappi ng ) ("v ictim suff ers bodil y inj ury") ; Tenn. Cod e A nn . § 39-13-305( a)(4) (1997) ( especial ly aggr avated kidnappi ng)("victim

suffer s se rious bod ily injury"); T

enn . Co de A nn. § 39-1 3-40 2(a )(2) (1997) (aggravat ed

robbery) ("v

ictim su ffers se riou s b od ily in jury "); T en n. C od e A nn. § 39-13-403( a) (1997) (es pe cia lly agg rava ted ro bbe ry) ("vi ctim suffer s se rious bod ily injury"); T

enn . Co de A nn. § 39-1 3- 502(a)( 2)(199

7) (ag grav ated rape ) ("de fend ant c aus es b odily in jury to th e victim "); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504( a)(2) (1997) ( aggravated sexual batter y)("defe nda nt ca use s bo dily injury to the victim "); Tenn. C od e A nn. § 39-14-404( a)(2) (1997) ( especial ly aggr avatedbu rgla ry) ("v ictim su ffer s s erio us bodil y inju ry "). T he ag gr av at ed ar so n s ta tu te sta nd s a lon e r ais ing th e p os sib ility of a d ef en da nt 's convicti on of the aggravat ed offense based upon his own serious bodil y inj ury.

In ex am inin g th e c rim ina l co de , w e fin d n o in dic atio n th at w e s ho uld de pa rt fro m the plai n meaning of the def ini ti on of "person" and t he com mon, ordinary usage of t he word "any." Thus,
we believe " any person" who suffers se ri ous bod il y inj ury i ncludes t he defendant. W e are fur ther persuaded by the wor

ding of the a gg

rav ate d a rso n s tatu te its elf, w hic h p rov ide s th at " a p ers on " is gu ilty of the crim e if certa in elem ents are m et, includ ing tha t "any pers on" (n o t "any other pers on") suffers serious bodil y inj ury. Unli ke other cri minal code provisi ons, the aggravat ed arson sta tute does not req uire injury to a "v ictim " or "an oth er" as an ele m en t of th e c rim e. F urth er more, this r es

ult is consist ent with t he uni qu

e c ha rac ter o f the crim e o f ars on. M ore so tha n th e o the r offe ns es in th e cri minal co de w hic h a re a gg rav ate d b y s om e le ve l of b od ily in jury , ar so n a s a ge ne ral pro po sitio n creates a dangerous exigency which ha s th e p ote ntia l to e nd an ge r th e c rim ina l him se lf, in ad ditio n to
an y ta rge ted ind ivid ua l, m em be rs o f the pu blic , an d re sc ue pe rso nn el.
Thus,we find no fl aw w

it h the defendant' s convicti on of aggravated arson based upon his ow n s erio us bo dily inju ry f rom the ex plo sio n h e c rea ted . T he jud gm en t of the trial cou rt is af fi rmed.5 ________________________________ JAMES CU RWOOD WITT, JR. , JUDGE CONCUR:

_______________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES , JUDGE

_______________________________ L.T. LAFFER

TY, SPE CIAL JUD GE