# FILED September 09, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINAL A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JUNE SESSION,1996 JERRY DORSE Y, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9508-CR-00218 Appellant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. W. FRE D A

XLEY STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction Relief)

FOR THE APPELLANT FOR THE APPELLEE CHRISTOPHER L. NEARN CHARLES W. BURSON 100 North Mai n Building Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter Suite 3400 Memphis, TN 38103 DEBORAH A. TU LLIS Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243 JOHNW. PIEROTTI Distric t Attorney General EDGAR PETERSON Assistant D istrict A

ttorney 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILE D ____________________ AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART JERRY L. SMITH, JUDG E-2- 

## OPINION Appell antJer ry D ors ey a pp ea ls from the dism issa l of his th ird pe tition for p ostconvi cti on relief. On Janu ary 22, 1988 Appel lantpled gui lty toaggravated sexual battery, aggravated ass ault, an d bu rglary. O n Fe brua ry 21 , 199 5, the pos tconvi cti on court dis missed Appel lant ’s t hird peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel iefaft er addressi ng the p etition o n its m erits. O n November 26, 1996, thi s Court o rdered Appell antand the S tate to fi le suppl emental br iefs addressi ng whether Ap pe llan t’s third peti ti on for

post- convi cti on rel iefwas outs ide o f the sta tute of l imit ati ons found i n Tennessee Code Annotat ed § 40-30- 102 (1990) (Repealed) . Appel lantclaim s t ha tal t ho ug h h i s t hi r d p et i t i on i s t i me- ba r r ed , t hi s C ou rtsh ou l d a dd r es s t he cl ai ms rai sed in his t hird peti tion because his c ase remains open due to l ack of n oti ce of t he dismis sal of his first petition for post-co nviction relief. The issue for revie w be fore th is Court i s whether Appell ant’ s thi rd pet it ion for post -convi cti on rel iefwas fi led beyond the statut e of l imit ati ons found in Tennessee Code Annot ated § 40-30- 102.

After ente ring in to a n ego tiated plea agre em ent o n January22, 1988, Appell antwas s enten ced to fifteen years for a gg rava ted sex ua l ba ttery , six yearsfor aggravat ed assaul t, and ten y ears f or burglary. The sentenceswere ordered t o be served con curre ntly for a n effe ctive se nten ce o f fifteen ye ars. On Feb ruary 27, 1989, Appell ant f il ed his f irst pet it ion forpost- convi cti on rel iefwhich was dismis sed. Alt hough the reco rd do es no t co nta in a cop y of th is peti ti on, t he record indi cates t hat itwas essent ial lya requestfordocuments. Appell antclai ms that he neverrecei ved a copy of t he Order of Dismissal ofhis first p etitio n. On September 19, 1989, Appell antfi led his s econd peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel ief , whi ch was sty led as a n-3-

amendment to his fi rstpe ti ti on. Hi s second pet it ion for post -convi cti on rel iefwas dismisse d. On May 27, 1993, Appell ant f il ed a wri t ofhabeas corpu s, whi ch the court treated as a peti ti on for post- convi cti on reli ef. On August 19, 1993 Appel lant fi led an am end me nt to his third pe tition . Eve n th ou gh Ap pe llan t in h is wri t ofhabeas corpus conceded t hat a t hird peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel iefwas ti me-barred, the post- convi cti on courtall owed Appell ant t o proceed under the am end m ent to the third peti ti on, consol i da t i ng App el l an t ’ s s ec on d p et i t i on wi t h h i s t hi rd pe t i t i on . On Feb ruary 21 , 19 95 , the po st-c on victio n co urt d ism isse d A pp ella nt’s thi rd pet it ion for pos t-con viction re lief.
Appell antargues t hat al though hi s thi rd pet it ion for post -convi cti on rel iefwas fi led beyond t he ti me permitt ed by Tennessee Code Anno tat ed § 40-30- 102, he sh ou ld neve rthele ss b e allow ed to proc eed und er his mo st re cent f il ing si nce the statu te of li m itatio ns was tol led byhis fail ure t o recei ve a copyof t he Order of Dis missal of h is firs t pe tition . He m ain tain s th at u nd er T en ne sse e R ule of C ivil Proc edu re 58 , an ord er w itho ut a cer tifica te o f se rvice sign ed by o nly one party i s a nonfi nal order which can no t be ap pe ale d. T he refo re, a s A pp ella nt’s argument goes, Ap pe llan t’s first p etitio n re m ain s op en , pe rm itting us to ad dre ss th e cla im s fo un d in his t hird peti ti on.

The Post- Convict ion Procedure Actprovi des that , “The cler k ofthe cou rt sh all send a copy ofthe f inal judg men t t o the pet it ioner
.. .. ” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 119(1990) (Rep ealed ). Therefore, we ne ed no t co ns ide r Ap pe llan t’s cla im tha t Ru le 58 of the T enn esse e Ru les of Civi l Proce dure is ap plica ble . In fa ct, w e h ave he ld-4-

thata peti ti oner who does notrecei ve t he noti ce mandated by t he Post- Convict ion Proc edu re Ac ti s e nt i t l ed t o rel i eff r om the d ism issa l of his p etition. Clotfelter v. Sta te , No. 03 C01-9206-CR-00210, 1993 W L 247926, at *3 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. J uly 8, 1993). In Clotfelt er , pe titio ner f il ed his f irst pet it ion for post -convi cti on rel iefon Ap ril 2, 1987, al leging t hat his gui ltypleas were involuntari ly ent ered. His f irst peti ti on was dis missed al though he al leged t ha t he nev er rec eiv ed a copy ofthe orderofdi smi ss al
. On November 1, 1991 Clo tfelter filed his se con d pe tition for p ostconvi cti on relief ag ain a lleging an in volun tary ple a. W e he ld th at beca us e C lotfe lter’s second peti ti on was beyond t he three-year stat ute ofli mitat ions found in Tennessee Code Annotat ed § 40-30- 102, hi s second petition was time -bar red. Clotfelt er , 1993 W L 247926 , at*4. However, we remanded the c ase to t he tr ial courtto hol d an eviden tiaryhe arin g o n w he the r or n ot C lotfe lter’s first p etitio n co uld be reo pe ne d if in facthe did notrecei ve proper noti ce. Si milar ly , i n Mo rgan v. State , pet it ioner fi led a second pet it ion beyond the statut e of l imit ati ons but cl aimed thatit should be heard because he never

recei ved noti ce of t he dismi ssal o f t he fi rstpeti ti on. No. 03C01- 9306-CR-00184, 1994 W L 71202, at*1 (Tenn. Crim. App. March 9, 199 4), perm . to app. den. , (Ten n. 199 4). W e refu sed to he ar M org an ’s se co nd pe tition be ca us e it was ti me-barred an d had absol utel y no rel ati on to t he grounds sta ted for re lief in h is first petition
. Morgan , 1994 WL 71202, at *2.

In the cas e at bar , we f ind t hat Appel lant ’s t hird pe ti ti on for post- convi cti on rel iefis tim e-b arre d, a nd the refo re w e a ffirm it s dismis sal. As for re-op ening Ap pe llan t’s first filing, we rem and the c ase to the pos t- con victi on courtforan eviden tiaryhearing to determ ine wh ether o r not Ap pellant rec eive d n otic e of t he dismis sal of h is firs t pe tition . If he did no t, he is enti tl ed to a hear ing on t he grounds-5-

raised in the first petition and the first petition only.

______________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDG E CONCUR

_______________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON , JUDGE

_______________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE-6-