### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y

22, 200 8

JEFF REY W. HAITH COT E v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County Nos. 9934 and 9935 L ee R ussell, Ju dge

No. M2007- 01469-CCA -R3-P C- F iled Novem ber 4, 2008

The Petitioner, Jeffre y

W. Haithcote, fil ed a motion to reope n his post-conviction petition, arg uing that ( 1 ) h e r e c e i v e d i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o un s e l ; ( 2 ) t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o k e e p a r e c o r d o f h is
pre li mi n a r

y h e a r in g ; ( 3 ) th e St a te b r e a c h e d th e p le a b a r g a in to w h ic h th e D e f e n d a n t a g ree d; (4) newly discovere d evidenc e is a

vailable in the form of ta

pes, witness statements, a nd transcr ipts; (5) his moti on to wi t hdrawhis guilty plea wa s not heard; ( 6) the State improper ly used his prior

c on vic tio ns to imp e a c h him a nd e nh a nc e his se nte nc e ; (7 ) his c on vic tio ns vio la ted t he D ouble Jeopar dy a nd Ex Pos t F a c to C la

us e s o f t he Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit

uti on ; and

(8 ) t he Sta te fa ile d to make c erta in transcr ipts available to him. The trial court summarily denied the motion. Following

our r e vie w, we dis mis s th e a pp e a l.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dism issed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., d el i vere d the opinion of the cour t, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J , joined.

J eff rey W. Haithcote, Pro Se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., At tor

ne y Ge ne ra l a nd

Re po rt e r; Cla

re nc e E. Lutz, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Charles Crawford, District Attorney Gene ral; and Michae l D. Randles, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound A jury convicted the Petitioner of eva ding a rre st and rec kless enda n ger m en t . He sub s e qu e n tl y p le a d e d g u il ty to a n u n r e late d c h a r g e o f e s c a p e

. A s a p a rt o f h is p le a a g r e ement, he waived the rig ht to appeal the e arlier convictions for e vading arr est and re ckless enda ng erme nt.-2-

Th e P etiti on e r f

ile d a pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f o n M a y 17 , 2 00 4. Th e po stconviction cour

t denied the Petitioner re lief; this Court upheld that d en i al. See Jeffre y Way ne Haithcote v. State, No. M2004-02196-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 2139405, at *11 (Te nn. Crim. App., Na sh vil le , Se pt. 2, 20 05 ), pe rm . to a pp . d e nie d ( Te nn . F e b. 6, 20 06 ). Th e Pe tit ion e r t he n, on Ap ri l 5, 20 06 , f ile d in the tr ia l c ourt a mot ion to re op e n his po st- c on vic tio n p e tit ion . T hat c ourt de nie d h is
mot ion on Oc tob e r 3 1, 20 06

. Th e Pe tit ion e r sub se qu e ntl y fi le d a noti c e of a pp e a l in an a tte mpt

to appea l the denial of the motion to reopen.

Ana lys is Tenne ssee Code A nn o ta

te d s e c ti o n 4 0

- 3 0

- 1 1 7 ( a ) o utl in e s c e r

ta in li mi te d c ircumstance s under which a pe titioner may

file a mo tion to reopen post-c onviction proce eding s. The Petitioner’s attempt to appea l from the trial c ourt’s denia l of his petition is defic ient in two respec ts.

F ir st, the Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a “ no tic e of

a pp e a l,” g ov e rn e d b y

Te nn e ssee R ul e of App e llate Procedur e 3(b)

. That rule doe s not provide for a n appea l as of rig ht in this situation, as the Petitioner is n o t a p p e a li n g f

r o m “ a n o r d e r

d e n y in g o r

r e v o k in g p r o b a ti o n ” o r

f r o m a “ f in a l j u d g me n t in a

c ri min a l c on te mp t, hab eas c or pu s, e xtra dit ion , o r p os t- c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g .” Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 3(b). The Petitioner should have filed a n application for

permission t o appeal, as re quired by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-30-117( c). See Fletc her v. State, 951 S.W .2d 378, 382 (Tenn. 1997) (stating that “an a

ppeal from the denial of a motion to reope n is a discre tionary appea l, not an

a pp e a l a s o f r ig ht” ). Whil e our su pr e me c ourt ha s he ld that a ple a din g tit le d a s a

“ no tic e of

a pp e a l” can be trea ted as a

n “applicat i o n for pe rmission to appeal,” it still “must i nclude the date and judgme nt from which the pe titioner seeks r eview, the issue which the pe titioner seeks to ra ise, and the re asons why

the appe llate cour

t should gra

nt review .” Graham v. State, 90 S.W.3d 687, 691 (Te n n

. 2 0 0 2 )

. H e r e , th e Pe ti ti o n e r ’ s n o ti c e o f a p p e a l o n ly c o n ta in s th e d a te o f ju d g ment, and the re fo re , c a nn ot b e tr e a te d a s an a pp lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ion

to a pp e a l.

Second, the Petitioner did not timely file an application for permission to appea l. I f the trial court de nies a motion to reopen, “ the petitioner shall have te n (10) da y s to file an applica

tion in the court of c riminal appea ls seeking permission to a ppeal.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-117(c ). He re, the tr ia l c ourt

de nie d th e pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n o n O c tob e r 3 1, 20 06 . T hu s, the Pe tit ion e r h a d unti l November

10, 2006, to file an a

pplication for pe rmiss i on to appea l. See id. The trial c ourt cler k,
upon rec eipt of a pe titione r’ s n o t i ce of appe al, is require d to serve a copy of the notice on the rele vant appe als court cler k. Tenn. R. A

pp. P. 5( a). That did not occur here until J uly

2, 2007. The

no tic e of a pp e a l do e s n ot r e fl e c t a

“ sta mp- fi le d” date , s ho wi ng the date it w a s f ile d in t he tr ia l c ourt

. The notice of appea l is dated November 15, 2006, five day s afte r the statutory deadline. Thus, even if the no tic e of

a pp e a l is tr e a te d a s an a

pp lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ion

to a pp e a l, i t w ou ld not be tim e ly filed.

B e c a

us e of the se de fi c ie nc ie s, thi s a

pp e a l is no t pr op e rl y

be fo re us a nd

sh ou ld a c c or din g ly be dismissed.-3- Conclusion For the re asons stated above, we dismiss this appeal of the trial court’ s denial of the Petitioner’s motion to reopen his post-conviction petition.

______________________________ DAVI D H. WEL L ES, J UDGE