W e no t e t he d i f ference i n t he spel l i ng of t he P et i t i o ner’ s nam e i n t hi s p roce ed i ng. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE

AU THOR RAY TUR NER v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 95-C- 1691 Steve R . Dozier , Judge

No. M2004- 02831-CCA -R3-C O - F iled Jul y 21, 2005

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Au thor

Ra y Tu rn e r, app e a ls t he tr ia l c ou rt ’s de nia l of his mot ion to r e op e n h is pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f c on te nd ing tha t B lake ly v. Was hin g ton, 54 2 U.S. _
_, 12 4 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) e stablished a new rule of law that was retrospec tively applicable to his case and entitled him to r e op e n h is po st -co nv ic tio n p ro c e e din g s. Th e Sta te ha s f ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ng tha t th is Court affir m the trial court’ s denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 2 0
, R u l es o f t he Court of Criminal Appea ls. We find the S tate’s moti on has m erit. Acc ording ly , the motion is gra nted and the a ppeal is a ff ir me d p ur su a nt t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d th e opini on of the c ourt, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J , joined.

Author Ray

Turner , pro se.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Novembe r 16, 1995, the Petitioner ente red a g uiltyplea t o espec ially ag g rava ted kidnapping
, ag g rava ted robbery
, and two counts of agg rava ted rape. The P etitioner was sentence d
t o s e r v e a n e f

f e c t i v e s e n t e n c e o f f

o r t y y e a r s

. I n 1 9 9 6
, t h e P e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n fo r p os tconviction re lief, the trial c ourt dismissed his p et i t i o n , and this Court affirme d the dismissal on

app e a l. A rthu r R . T ur ne r v. Sta te , N o. 01 C01-97 07 -C R-00 27 4, 19 98 WL 65 21 54 (T e nn . Cr im. 1 App., at Na shville, Sept. 23, 1998), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Ma

r. 22, 1999). On January

7, 2004, the Petitioner filed a se cond petition for pos t -c o n viction relief a lleg ing ine ffe ctive assistanc e of-2-

counsel a nd that his guilty plea was involuntary

. The trial court dismiss ed the Petitioner’s petition,

a nd thi s Court af

fi rm e d the dis mis sa l on app e a l. On June 14 , 2 00 4, the Pe tit ion e r f ile d a mot ion to reop e n h is p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n p e ti ti o n , a n d th e tria l c o u r t d e n ie d h is mo ti o n o n Ju n e 3 0
, 2 0 0 4. On September 28, 2004, the P etitioner filed a second motion to reope n his post-conviction, which the trial court de nied on Octobe r 1, 2004. The P etitioner filed his notice of appea l in the t rial court on November

22, 2004.

Th e Pe tit ion e r n ow app e a ls a nd a lle g e s th a t B lake ly v. Was hin g ton , 5 42 U. S. _
_, 12 4 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) e stablished a new rule of law that was retrospec tively applicable to his case and entitled him to reopen his post-conviction proce eding s. Pursuant to T ennesse e Code Annotated section 40- 30 -1 17 (c ), up on the de nia l of a mot ion to re op e n a post -c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g , “ the pe tit ion e r s ha ll hav e ten (10) da y s to fi le a n a pp lic a tio n in the c ou rt

of c ri min a l app e a ls s e e kin g pe rm iss ion to appea l. The applica tion shall be acc ompanied by copies of all the documents filed by both parties in the tr ia l c o u r t a n d th e o r d e r d e n y in g th e mo ti o n

. ” I n th e c a s e u n d e r s u b mi s s io n , the notice of appea l is unti mely

filed. F urther, if the motion to reope n is c onsidered on its mer its, the Petit ioner has fa iled to establish that he is e ntitled to relief

. The Petitioner’s r eliance on Blakely is mispl ace d. I n St a te v. Go me z, __ S.W.3 d __, 20 05 WL 85 68 48 (T e nn . Apr . 15, 20 05 ), the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court rec ently

held that B lakely

did not establish a new r

ule of law. The Court thus noted that the fi lin g of a mot ion to re op e n ba se d on Bl a ke ly “ wo uld be a fu til e e nd e a vo r. ” I d. a t *32 n.1 6; s e e a lso Th oma s E ug e ne Gr a ha m, N o. E2 00 4- 02 95 8- CCA -R 3- PC, 2 00 5 W L12 69 18 8 a t *1 (T e nn . Cr im. App., at Knoxvill e, May

26, 2005), no perm. app. filed

.

Acc ording ly , the State’s motion is hereby g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirme d in a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE