### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

DON ALD CL AR K v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Shelby Coun ty No. P-27880 Paula Skah an, Jud ge

No. W2008-00483-C CA-R 3-PC - Filed October 30, 2008

The pro se petitioner, Dona ld Clark, appea ls the di smissal of hi s motion to reope n his petition for post-conviction re lief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this c ourt dismiss the appea l for lack of jurisdic t i o n or, in the alternative, af firm the post-convic tion court’s summary dismissal of the mot ion pu rs ua nt to Rul e 20 , Rul e s of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. Be c a us e the pe tit ion e r d id
no t c omp ly w ith the statut ory r e qu ir e me nts fo r s e e kin g d isc re tio na ry re vie w o f the dis mis sa l of h is motion, thi s court has no jurisdiction in the ca se. Ac cordingly, the a ppeal is dismissed.
Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

A LA N E. G LENN , J. , d e liv e re d th e op ini on of the c ou rt , in wh ic h J .C. M C L IN and C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , JJ., joined.
Donald Clark, Na shville, Tennessee , Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; and Clarenc e E. Lutz, A ssi s t an t Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

In 20 01 , th e pe tit ion e r w a s c on vic te d in the She lby Cou nt y Crimi na l Co urt of e sp e c ia lly aggra vated r obbery a nd sentenc ed to twenty-seve n year s as a violent offe nder. This court aff irmed the judgment of the trial c ourt, and the supr eme c ourt denied t h e petitioner’ s application for permission to appea l. See State v. Donald Clark, N o. W2001-01549- CCA-R3-C D, 2 003 WL 21339272, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Ma y 15, 2003), perm. to appeal de nied (Te nn. Oct. 27, 2003). On Novembe r 23, 2003, the pe titioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief , followed,
a ft e r the app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l, b y a n a me nd e d p e tit ion fi led on Ju ly 2 5, 20 05 . T he po stconviction court subse quently denied the petition, a nd this c ourt aff irmed that judgment on April 25, 2007. The pe titioner’s appli ca t i o n fo r p ermiss ion to appeal to the supre me court was denie d on August 20, 2007. See Dona ld Clark v. State, No. W2006- 00642-CCA-R3-PC, 2007 WL 1215024, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App. Apr. 25, 2007), pe rm. to appea l denied (Te nn. Aug. 20, 2007).-2-

On Octobe r 31, 2007, the pe titione r filed a pro se mot ion to r e op e n h is p e tit ion fo r p os tconviction re lief, alleging, int e r a lia , tha t his sen te nc e wa s il le ga lly e nh a nc e d in vio la tio n o f B lake ly
v. W a sh ing ton , 5 42 U. S. 2 96 , 1 24 S. Ct . 253 1 (20 04 ), a ndthat th e re wa s n e w s c ie nti fi c e vid e nc e to
e sta bli sh his inn oc e nc e , s pe c if ic a lly , the a ff

ida vit of c omp laint

fo r a se arc h w arr a nt i ssu e d in the c a se had not bee n revie wed or signed by a neutral magistrate. On Ja nuary 30, 2008, the post-conviction court e ntere d an orde r denying the motion to reope n on the basis t hat t he petiti oner was not entitled to r e tr os pe c tiv e app lic a tio n o f the ru le a nn ou nc e d in Blake ly; the origi na l a ff ida vit of c omp la int

wa s, in fac t, signed; a nd even if the aff idavit of complaint wer e unsigned, such w ould not constitut e new scientific e vidence establishing the petitioner’s innocenc e of the offe nse. On Februa ry 28, 2008, the pe tit ion e r f

ile d a no tic e of app e a l in the She lby Cou nty Cr imi na l Co urt.

The State a

rgues that this court lacks j u risdiction to entertain the a ppeal be cause the petitioner has no a

ppeal a s of right from the de nial of a motion t o re open post-convic tion pr oc e e din gs a ndfaile d to c omp ly w ith the pr oc e du ra l re qu ir e me nts , inc lud ing the te n- da y ti me lim it, for se eking a discr etionary a ppeal in this court. We agre e with the State.

The State c orre ctly notes that a pe titioner has no appe al as of right from a lower court’s denial of his motion to reopen a post-conviction petit i o n

. S ee T en n. R. App. P. 3(b); Timothy Roberson v. S t ate, No. W2007-00230-CCA-R3-PC, 2007 WL 3286681, a t *9 (Tenn. Crim. App. No v

. 7 , 2 0 07), perm. to appeal de nied (Te nn. Apr. 14, 2008); Miko T. Burl v. State, No. W2005- 01 64 0- CCA -R 3- PC, 2 00 6 W L 3 37 13 95 , a t *1 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. No v. 17 , 200 6) . T he statut e governing motions to reopen post-conviction petitions provide s that “[i]f the motion is denied, the petitioner shall have ten (10) days to file an application in t h e co u rt o f crimi nal appe als seeking permission to appea l. The application shall be acc ompanied by copie s of all the docume nts filed by both parties in the trial c ourt and the order denying the motion.” T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-117(c ) (2006); see also Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 10(B); Graham v. State, 90 S.W.3d 687, 689 (Te nn. 2002) (“ Ac c or din gly , T e nn . Co de . A nn . § 40 -3 0- 21 7( c ) o utl ines fou r requi re me nts fo r an a pp e a l f ro m a motion to reopen to be c onsidered: ( 1) the timeliness of filing, (2) the place of fili n g , (3 ) the application to be f

iled, and (4) the attac hments to the application.”)

.
Her e, the pe titioner failed to f ile his a pplication for pe rmission to appeal within ten days of the date on w hich the lower court’s de nial of the motion wa s fi l ed , t o fi le his application in the pr op e r c ou rt , o r t o atta c h th e re le va nt d oc ume nts . Be c a us e he faile d to su bs tant ia lly c omp ly w ith the pr oc e du ra l re qu ir e me nts ou tli ne d in the statut e , we la c k jurisd ic tio n to e nte rt a in the appea l. Acc ordingly, the appe al is dismis sed.

___________________________________ ALAN E. G LENN, JUD GE