### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

JOE L. UTL EY v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 93-B-762 Seth Nor m an, Jud ge

No. M2003- 02415-CCA -R3-C O - F iled Septem ber 2, 2005

The P etitioner, Jo e L

. U tl e y , ap p e a ls th e tria l c o u r t’ s d e n ia l o f h is p e ti ti o n f

o r w r it o f e rr o r c o r am nobis which asserted that newly discovere d evidenc e existed that may have re s ulted in a diffe rent judgm e n t at t

r ia l. T h e St a te h a s f

il e d a mo ti o n r e q u e s ti n g th a t th is Co u r t a f f irm th e tria l c ourt’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. We fi n d t h e S t ate’ s mot ion ha s me ri t. Ac c or din g ly , the mot ion is g rante d a nd the app e a l 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 the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J , joined.

J oe L . Utley , pro se.
Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge n e r a l andRe po rt e r; El iza be th B . M arn e y , 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

The Petitioner was convicted of felony murder and espec ially

ag g ravated robbe ry . See Joe L . Utley v. S t ate, No. M199900560CCAMR3PC, 2000 W L 374916 at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 7, 2000) , perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Nov. 6, 2000). He rece ived concurre nt sentence s of life a nd twenty

y ear s. On J an u ar y 3 0 , 1 997, the Petitioner filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief , the post-conviction court dismi ssed his petition, and this C ourt aff irmed the dismissal on
app e a l. I d. a t *5 . On Au g us t 13, 200 1, the Pe tit ion e r fi le d a pet iti on fo r wr it of e rr or c or a m no bis contending that the prosec utio n h ad wi thheld an important statement of a witness, which the Petitioner asserts wa s the basis for his c onvictions. Specifica lly , the Petitioner claimed that he had newly discovere d evidenc e, that being previous testi mony by a State witness at his juvenile tra nsfer hearing that should have been introduced at the Petitioner’s trial. On Aug ust 15, 2001, the trial court-2-

dismiss ed the Petitioner’s pe tition, findi ng that it wa s barr ed by the statute of limit ations and, further, that the alleg ations were not adequate g rounds upon whic h t o grant error c oram nobis re lief. The Petitioner filed his notice of a ppeal on Septembe r 19, 2003.

The Petitioner now appea ls a nd contends that the thirty day statute of limitations period for filing his notice of

appea l should be waived beca use he mailed his notice of appea l on Aug ust 23, 2001. Further, the Petitioner asserts tha t the trial court err ed in de ny ing his pe tition for writ of er ror cora m nobis. The State contends that the petit ion for writ of error coram nobis was filed outside the one y ear statute of limitations. Further, the State asserts that the testimonyof the State’s w itness was not newly discovere d.

I nit ia lly , w e no te that th e Pe tit ion e r’ s noti c e of app e a l wa s unti me ly fi le d. Pur su a nt t o Ru le 4 , T e n n e s s e e R u l e s o f

A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e , a

n o t i c e o f ap p e a l s h a l l b e f

i l e d w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a ys a ft e r e ntry

of the jud g me nt f

ro m w hic h a n a

pp e a l is so ug ht. Th e or de r d e ny ing the pe tit ion fo r w ri t of er ror c oram nobis was e ntere d on Aug ust 15, 2001, and the Petitioner filed a notice of appe al on Se pte mbe r 1 9, 20 03

. Ne ve rthe le ss, ou r Rule s of Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re pr ov ide that, in c ri min a l c a se s, “the ‘ notice of a

ppeal’ document is not jurisdictional and the filing of such doc ument may be wa ived in the interest of justice.” Tenn. R.App. P. 4(a) . There fore , in the interest of justice, w e will waive the thirty -day

filing r equire ment and re view the pe tition on i ts merits. Tenn.R.App.P. 4(a). A p e tit io n for writ o f e rr or c or a m no bis re lie f m us t be fi le d w ith in o ne y e ar o f the tim e judgme nt becomes f

inal in the trial court. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103. B ased on the rec ord, it is clear that the Petitioner’ s petition was filed seve ral y ear s after the statute of limit ations had run. Howeve r, due proce ss may require that the s tatute of limit ations for filing a petition for writ of e rror cora m nobis be tolled. See Workman v. State, 41 S.W .3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001) . Nothi ng in the
rec ord implicates any

due proc ess conc erns that would r equire that the statute of limitations be tolled. Further, we ag ree with the State’s assertion that the Petiti oner’ s alleg ed “ne wly dis co v ere d” evidenc e, that being a juvenile he aring transcript, is not newly discovere d. I n Tenne ssee, a writ of
err or cor am nobi s should be gra nted when “subsequently or new ly discovere d evidenc e . . . may have resulted in a dif

fer ent judg ment, had it been pr esente d at tri al

. ” T en n
. Code Ann. § 40-26- 105 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; W o rk ma n , 4 1 S. W. 3 d a t 1 0 4

. I n a f f irmi n g th e p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n c o u r t’ s d is mi s s a l o f the Petitioner’s post-conviction petition, this C ourt stated that the P et i t ioner made a conc lusory state me nt tha t th e tr a ns c ri pt w ou ld h a ve ha d impe a c hme nt v a lue a ndthat th e Pe tit ion e r “ fa ile d to
s h o w th a t h e w a s p r e

ju d ic e d b y

th e ab s e n c e o f

a tr a n s c r ip t. ” U tl e y , 2 0 0 0 WL 374 9 1 6 a t* 3

. We conclude that the trial court properly denied the r elief soug ht by the Petitioner.

Acc ording ly , the S tate’s moti on is here by g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed 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