### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Apr il 8, 200 8
AN THON Y T . R OBER TSON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 07-CR-8986 R. Lee Moore , Jr., Judge

No. W2007-02362-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Jul y 8, 2008

Th e pet ition e r, Antho ny

T. Rob e rt so n, fi le d a

pe tit ion fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s c ha lle ng inghis conviction for se x ual b att ery . The trial c ourt issued a wr itten order dismissing the petition and de nyingha

be a s c or pu s r e lie f f

or fa ilure to state a

c og niza ble c la im. Th e pe tit ion e r f ile d a n unti me ly appea l of the written or der d en ying his pe tition. Following our r eview of the par ties’ brief s, the
rec ord, and the applicable law, we conclude that t h e p et i t i o ner f ailed to timely

file his notice of appea l and there fore his appea l is dism issed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dism issed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. Anthony T. Robertson, Tiptonville, Tennessee , Pro Se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Ra c he l Wes t Ha rm on and Ra c he l E . Wil lis , Assistant Attorney s Gene ral; C. Phill ip Bivens, District Attorne y Gene ral; and John Finklea, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

In July of 20 00 , th e pe tit ion e r w a s in iti a lly c ha rg e d wi th a g g ra

vate d s e xua l ba

tte ry , a Cla ss B f elony . The petitioner enter ed a plea of no conte st to an amende d char g e of se x ual batter y and the tr ia l c ourt imp os e d a

se nte nc e of

six y e ars pr ob atio n a

nd or de re d th e pe tit ion e r to se rv e on e y e ar i n the Montg omery

County Workhouse. Additionally , the petitioner wa s require d to reg ister as a sex offe nder a

nd complete the sex offender prog ram. The petitioner wa s confined in the Montg omery County Jail be g inn ingin D e c e mbe r o f 1 99 9 and was later mov e d to the Mo ntg ome ry County Wor kh ou se wh e re he se rv e d unti l Se pte mbe r o f 2 00 0. Af te r hi s re le a se , h e wa s o n p ro batio n in Tenne ss ee f

rom September 2000 until Dec ember 2000. In Dec ember

of 2000, his probation wa s transfe rre d to Chica g o, I llinois

. The petitioner was on probation in Chica g o from De cembe r 2000 until August 2003.W e n ot e t h at u pon r ev i ew of t h e r ec or d, bot h t h e cov er s h ee t of t h e t r an s cr i pt of

t h e pet i t i on er ’ s pr obat i on 1

revoc at i o n heari ng as well as t he d at e ref erenced i n t he co urt ’ s wri t t e n d ism issal ord er i nd i cat e t hat t he d at e o f t he pr obat i on r ev oca t i on h ea r i n g w as J u l y 27, 2007. H owe v er , t h e cou r t r epor t er ’ s v er i f i ca t i on pa g e at t he con cl u s i on of the tra n sc rip t i n d ic a te s tha t t h e he a rin g w a s h e ld o n J u ly 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 . W e c o n c lud e tha t afte r re v ie w a n d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith t he f i l i ng da t es of

other do cum ent s i n t he reco rd, t he p rob at i o n vi o l at i o n heari ng was i n f act hel d on July 27 , 20 0 6 , and
n ot on J u l y 27, 2007.
2 In Augus t of

20 03 , th e pe tit ion e r was arres te d f or pr ob atio n v iol atio ns and

wa s o rd e re d to
serve one hundred eig hty (180) day s in ja il with cre dit f or eig hty -five ( 85) day s. After servingone hundred e ighty

day s in jail, his probation was re i n s t at ed i n J anuar y of 2004. In J uly

of 2004, the p et i t i o n er wa s re arre s t edan d

co n fi n edi nth e M o n t g o m e ry C o u n ty J ai l fr o mJ u l y

o f 2 0 0 4 th ro u gh August, 2006. The petitioner re ceive d cre dit for jail time. A probation violation hearingwas he ld on J uly 27, 2006. The re cor dindicates that the

1 orig inal probation violation war rant was issued beca

use t he petiti oner c hang ed re sidence s without permission, failed to re port to t h e probation off icer , and fa iled to attend and c omplete the sex offe nder pr og ram. The probation violation warra nt was ame nded once to include a c harg e of r ape. The proba

tion violation warrant wa s amende d a sec ond time to include a ch ar ge of fe lony murder. T he petiti oner was convicted of t he off ense of assault instead of r ape. T he fe lony murder char g e was dismiss ed. At the c onclusion of the petitioner’ s probation re vocation hea ring , the cour

t order ed that the petitioner serve t he balance of his origina l sentence due to his probation violations and assa ult conviction while on probation. The pe titioner filed his petition for writ of habea s corpus on J une 15, 2007. The defe ndant argued that he was sentenced as a R ang e I I I offe nder and that his trial counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistance of counse l. The petitioner a lso a rgu ed t hat cumulatively , he had se rved six y ear s and seven months and that his sentenc e had expi red. The petitioner’s pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus was summarily

dismiss ed without a hea

ring by written order on J uly 9, 2007. In its order de nying
re lie f, the co ur

t c on c lud e d th at th e pe tit ion e r’ s a rgume nt t hat he wa s e rr on e ou sly

se nte nc e d a s a Rang e I I Iof

fe nd e r a nd tha t hi s tr ia l c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l di d n ot c re ate a void judgm en t b u t m er el y a voidable one , and ther efor e the pe titioner was not entitled to relief under a writ of habe as corpus. Fur thermore , the cour

t determined that the exhibi ts attache d to the petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus fa iled to demonstrate that the petitioner’s sentenc e had e x pired, and as suc h, the petitioner fa iled to state a c og nizable claim for ha beas c orpus re lief. The pe titioner filed a notice of appe al from the c ourt’s written or der on O ctober 11, 2007. The pe titioner’s notice of a ppeal wa s filed more tha

n thirty day s after

the issuance o f the cour

t’s written orde r deny

ing ha beas c orpus re lief. At the outset, we note that a noti ce of appea l must be filed within thirty (30) da y s after the date of en t ry o f t h e judg ment from which the petitioner is appea ling. Te nn. R. App. P. 4(a). Although a

notice of a

ppeal is not jurisdictional , an d t h e require ment for a n untimely

notice of appea l ma y be waived in the interest of justice, we decline to do so in the instant case. Id

. The c ourt3

issued its written or der denying the petition f or a writ of habea s corpus on J uly 9, 2007. More than thr ee m o n t hs passed be fore the petitioner filed his notice of appe al on Octobe r 11, 2007. The petitioner has not offere d an explanation for the untimely filing of his appea l or adva

nced a ny argume nt a s to why

his a pp e a l w arr ants c on sid e ratio n d e sp ite its un tim e lin e ss. Th e re fo re , w e wi ll
no t w a ive the tim e ly

fi lin gre qu ir e me nt an d we de c lin e to ad dr e ss the pe tit ion e r’ s argume nts on the ir merits. The pe titioner is without relief.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , the def endant’ s appea l is dism issed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE