IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs June 7, 2011

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LAKEYA PEOPLES

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 10-551 Roger Page, Judge

No. W2010-02292-CCA-R3-CD - Filed June 28, 2011

In this State appeal, the State challenges the Madison County Circuit Court’s decision

dismissing the charges against the defendant and expunging them from her record, claiming

that the trial court was without jurisdiction to take the action because the judgment had

become final. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

JAMES CURWOOD WITT,JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which NORMA MCGEE

OGLE and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis, Assistant Attorney

General;James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Matthew Floyd, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Nathan Pride, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lakeya Peoples.

OPINION

The record in this case is as sparse as it is perplexing. It appears, however, that

sometime after her February 2007 arrest, the defendant entered an uncounseled guilty plea

in the Jackson City Court to the offense of child neglect. What happened thereafter,

however, is not entirely clear. The judgment form contains the signatures of two different

city court judges as well as several other handwritten notations apparently added to the

document at different points in time. Despite the two signatures below the portion of the

judgment detailing the sentence to be imposed, no judicial signature appears below the line

that reads: “I hereby accept the defendant’s waiver of rights (finding it to be a free, knowing,

and voluntary waiver) and the defendant’s guilty plea, thereby finding the defendant guilty

of the above offense.” One handwritten notation provides “5-31-07 compl. P.W. +30,”
another provides “+60,” another provides “continue compliant w/ pathways,” and the date

blank at the bottom of the judgment form is filled with June 28, 2007.

Despite the fact that the sentencing portion of the judgment indicates a sentence

of 11 months and 29 days “to serve,” the defendant never actually served any term of

incarceration. According to pleadings filed by the defendant, she was ordered to attend

parenting classes and report periodically to the court. After the passage of some time, she

said, the city court judge told her the case would be closed based upon her completion of

parenting classes. The defendant no longer reported to the court after that date. According

to her pleadings, she went on to complete a course of study at Union University, where she

graduated at the top of her class, and then applied for a job. During the background check

required for her employment, the defendant learned that the current case remained open and

pending in the Jackson City Court.

In August 2010, the defendant filed a motion in the Jackson City Court asking

that the case be dismissed and the charge expunged based upon her compliance with the

ordered counseling. The State opposed the motion on grounds that the judgment was entered

on June 28, 2007, and that it became final 30 days after its entry. The city court granted the

defendant’s motion finding that “the matter was held open from its June 28, 2007 hearing,”

that the case remained open and pending at the time of the filing of the motion, and that the

defendant was without benefit of counsel at the June 28, 2007 hearing and “mistakenly

believed the matter was to be dismissed and expunged.” The city court dismissed the case

and ordered that the charge be expunged.

Following the entry of the city court order, the State appealed to the Madison

County Circuit Court, arguing that the city court was without jurisdiction to dismiss the case

and expunge the charges because the June 28, 2007 judgment became final 30 days after its

entry. The circuit court disagreed.

At the October 13, 2010 hearing, the circuit court noted that it believed that the

city court judge intended the judgment document to act as an “informal expungement, where

you let something just pend for six months or so and if the [d]efendant didn’t get in any more

trouble it was dismissed.” The court cited the various handwritten notations in differing

colors of ink as indicative of this intent. The court noted that the defendant’s name, the

offense, the docket number, and the defendant’s signature are in blue and were all likely

placed on the form on May 31, 2007. The signature of one city court judge also appears to

have been made on that same date. The circuit court ultimately determined that “probably

the best person to determine whether or not this is a final judgment” was the city court judge

and that the city court judge had concluded that the judgment was not final. The court

deferred to that finding and affirmed the ruling of the city court judge.

-2-
In this appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred by affirming the ruling

of the city court judge because the June 28, 2007 judgment became a final judgment. The

record does not clearly establish, however, that the document at issue in this case was

intended to be a judgment at all, much less a final judgment. We do not have the benefit of

the original document, but the circuit court indicated that the various notations on the

document appear in different colors of ink and were, quite clearly, placed on the document

at different times. Although the State contends that the defendant entered and that the city

court accepted a plea of guilty on June 28, 2007, and imposed a sentence of 11 months and

29 days to serve, the document itself belies this interpretation because it contains notations

entered before June 28, 2007.

Moreover, the State does not contest the defendant’s assertion that a criminal

background check showed the case as open in 2010. We agree with the circuit court that the

city court judge was in the best position to determine the procedural posture of the

defendant’s case, and the record does not contradict any of that court’s findings.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

_________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-3-