1



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

AT JAC KSON

ERIC GLOV ER v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for F ayett e County

No. 4802 Jon K. Blackwood , Judge

No. W2005-02004-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Janu ary 25, 2006

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Eric Gl ov e r, app e a ls the low e r c ou rt ’s de nia l of his pe tit ionfo r p os tconviction re lief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm t h e t ri al court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. The Petitioner is proce durally barr ed f r o mp u r s u i n g ap p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h e l o w e r c o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f

p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the above -ca

ptioned appea l is dism issed.
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
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYE S AND J.C. M C LIN , J J . joined.
Eric Glove r, pro se . Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; B ri a n C. John so n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Eric Gl ov e r, wa s c on vic te d b y a F a y e tte Count y ju ry of on e c ou nt o f f ir st de g re e mur de r, on e c ou nt o f e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d kidn app ing , a ndon e c ou nt o f e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated robbe ry . See State v. Eric Terrell Glove r , N o . W2 0 0 0

- 0 1 2 7 8

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 1 WL 1078279, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Sept. 14, 2001). A sentenc e of life imprisonment wasW e n ot e t h at t h e n ot i ce of a ppea l doc u men t w as n ot r ec ei v ed by t h e Cl er k of t h i s Cour t u n t i l Au g u s t 26, 1 2 0 0 5 . T h e re is no e x p la n a tio n a s to the re a so n fo r th e d e la y in fo rw a rd ing the no tice o f ap p e a l d o c u m e n t t o this C o u rt. 2 imp o s e d f

o r th e f ir s t d e g r e e mu r d e r c o n v ic ti o n . Id. The Petitioner wa s sentence d, as a violent offe nder, to c oncurr ent twenty (20) y ear s entenc es for

the re maining c onvictions. Id. This Court aff irmed t he P etitioner’s convictions and sente nces on dire ct appe al. Id. Although the Petitioner soug ht review by

the Tenne ssee Supre me C ourt, this state’s highest court denied the a pplication as u n t i m e l y. On J une 17, 2004, the Petitioner filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief , alleg ing that he was wr ong fully

denied se cond-tier

revie w by

the Tenn es s ee Supreme Court and r equesting the opportunity

to file a de lay ed application for permission to appea l. By order enter ed J une 28, 2004, the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

dis mis se d th e pe tit ion , f

ind ing that “ the rewa s n ot a mis c a lc ulatio n o f t ime by the Supreme Court for

the fil i n g o f s ai d Application for Permission t o Appea l” and that the petition wa s barr ed by the one y ear statute of limit ation. A notice of appea l document was f

iled on Oc tob e r 2 7, 20 04

. Th e c e rt if ic a te of se rv ic e a tta c he d to theno tic e of app e a l do c ume nt r e fl e c ts a date of Jul y 12, 2004.
The State ha s fi led a motion reque sting summary aff irmance in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Supreme Court. I n its mot ion, the State contends that the notice of appe al document is late, ther eby depriving this Court of jurisdiction. I f wa i ver of the timely

filing require ment is gr anted, howe ver, the State asserts that petition should be dis missed as unt imely

. See T.C.A. § 40-40-102. Ag ain, the post-convic t i o n co u rt denied r elief by order enter ed June 29, 2004. The notice of appe al document wa s filed in the trial court on October 27, 2004. No motion to ex cuse the late- 1 filed notice of

appea l document was f

iled with this C ourt. Notwithstandi n g , the re cord c ontains do c ume ntatio n f

ro m the Pe tit ion e r, a lle g ing that the no tic e of app e a l w a s se nt f

ro m th e priso n f

a c ili ty on or about July12, 2004. Pursuant to Rule 4, TennesseeRules of Appellate Procedur e, a notice of appea l shall be filed within thirtyday s after

entry of the judg ment from which an appea l is sought. I n criminal pr oc e e din g s, ho we ve r, theno tic e is n ot jurisd ic tio na l. Ac c or din g ly , this Cou rt ma y re vie w u nti me ly app e a ls andde te rm inewh e the r the no tic e re qu ir e me nt s ho uldbe waived

. Ten n. R. App. P. 4. Waiver is not automatic and should only occur when " the intere st of justice" mandates w aiver . To hold otherwise, by

summarily

g ranting waiver

whene ver c onfronted with untimely notices, re nders the thirty -day

require ment a leg al fiction and circ umvents the rule. See M ichelle Pie rre Hill v. State, No. 01C01-9506-CC-00175, 1996 WL 63950, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Fe b. 13, 1996), perm. to appeal de nied, (Tenn. May 28, 1996).
Al tho ug h Pe tit ion e r' s f

ili ng wa s pro se, Rule 4, Tennesse e Rules o f Appellate Procedure , does not relieve pro s e app e lla nts fr om the thi rty -d a y no tic e re qu ir e me nt. Th us , Pe tit ion e r' s pro s e3

s t a t u s r e m a i n s b u to n e f

a c t o r i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r

t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e m a n d a t e s w a i v e r o f t h e t h i r t yday notice requirement. In determining whe ther waiver is appr opriate this Court shall consider the nature of the issues for

revie w, t he reasons for the delay in seeking relief , and other

rele vant fa ctors prese nted in eac h case

. Even should this Court acc redit the Petitioner’s assertion that the notice of appea l document wa s d e liv e re d to a

pp ro pria te of

fi c ia ls on J uly 12 , 200 4, we c a nn ot co nc lud e that justi c e re qu ir e s th is Court to ex cuse the timely filing of the notice of

appea l document. The Te nnessee Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s a

pplication for pe rmission to appeal on De cemb er 1 4, 2001. Thus, the Petitioner’s petition for post-convic tion relief f iled on J une 17, 2 0 0 4 , is barre d by the one- y ear statute of limitations. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( a). Moreove r, even had the petition be en timely filed, a pe tit ionse e kin g a low e r c ou rt ’s re vie w o f the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt ’s c a lc ulatio n o f the tim e for f iling an application for pe rmission to appeal is not a cog nizable claim for post-c onviction relief.
I n th e abs e nc e of a tim e ly fi le d noti c e of app e a l, this Cou rt

is w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to e nte rt a in the above -ca

ptioned appea l. Accor dingly , the appe al is dismis sed.

___________________________________



### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE