### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE THOM AS EU GEN E GR AHA M v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 215735 Stephen M. Bevil, Jud ge

No. E2004-02958-CC A-R3- P C - F iled May 26, 2005
The pro se petitioner, Thomas Eug ene Graham, appea ls f rom the trial court' s order denying the petitioner' s motion t o reope n his post-conviction petition. The states moves the c ourt to aff irm the jud g me nt o f the tr ial cou rt pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 of

thi s c ou rt ’s ru le s. Th e mot ionwa s p ro pe rl y denied f o r lac k of merit. Ac cording ly , the state' s motion i s g rante d and the judg ment of the trial court is af firmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J .J ., joined. Thomas Eug ene Graham, Tiptonvil le, Tenne ssee, Pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Seth P. Kestner, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee. 

### MEMOR ANDUM OPINION
The de fendant was convic ted in 1991 in the Criminal Court for Hamilton Countyof a g g ra vate d r ape , a g g ra vate d kidn app ing , a nda g g ra vate d b ur g lary . H e wa s se nte nc e d a s a standard of

fende r to conc urre nt, max imum R ang e I sentenc es of 25, 25, a nd 6 y ear s, respe ctively

. On appe al, his convictions wer e af firmed but his sentenc e for ag g ravated kidnapping was modified to 12 y ear s. See State v. Thomas Eug ene G raham, No. 03C01-9112-CR-00391 (Tenn. Crim. App. J un. 22, 1993), app. de nied (Te nn. Oct. 4, 1993).
I n November

2004, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 17 (c ); se e a lso Te nn . Su p. Ct. R. 2 8 § 10 (b ). He a lle g e s th a t hi s sentenc e wa s enhanc ed by the trial court bey ond the statutory maxi mum in viol ation of the holding in B lakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The petitioner a sserted that Blakely

established a ne w rule of law that is retr ospectively applicable to his case a nd entitles him to reopen his post-conviction proc eeding s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117( a)( 1).T he o rder i ncl ud ed i n t he reco rd was ent ered on D ecem b er 6, 2 0 0 4 , but i s no t f i l e- st am p ed

. U p o n i nq ui ry , t he 1 tria l co u rt c le rk ha s c o n firm e d tha t t h e o rd e r w a s a lso fi le d o n D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 4

. -2- On Dec ember

6, 2004 , the trial court denied the motion "w ithout prejudice." I n its order, the

1 c ou rt state d, in r e le va nt p art : Ev e n a ssu min g that B lake ly e sta bli sh e s a ne w c on sti tut ion a l rule a ndthat, did the petitioner' s sentence s post-date B lakely , they would violate that rule, howeve r, the subjec t motion i s prematur e, the Supre me Court having y et to make Blakely applicable to case s on collatera l review . See Simpson, 376 F.3d at 681 (dismissing without prejudice an application for leave to file a succ essive collater al attac k under 28 U .S.C. § 2255 on t he g round that it was pre mature, the Supreme Court having not y et having applied B lakely retrospe ctively

or announce d that it has such application). The Court there fore decide s that the subject motion to reopen the pe titioner' s post-conviction petition should be denied wi tho ut p re

jud ic e . T he Cou rt

ob se rv e s th a t th is d isp os iti on of the mot ionwi ll a llo w the pe tit ion e r t o r e ne w the mot ionsh ou ld the Sup re me Cou rt app ly B lake ly retrospe ctively

or announc e that it has re trospective a pplication. On Dec ember

15, 2004, the petitioner filed a "notice of appe al" from the or der of denial. The trial court c lerk transmitt ed a r ecor d which wa s filed in this court on J anuary 10, 2005. There afte r, the pe titioner filed a brief, a nd the state re sponded with the instant Rule 20 motion for summary aff irmance

. Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated Section 40-30-117( c), upon the denial of a motion to reope n a post-convic tion procee ding, " the petitioner shall have ten (10) day s to file an app lic a tio n inthec ou rt

of c ri min a l app e a ls s e e kin g pe rm iss ionto a pp e a l. T he app lic a tio n s ha ll be ac companied by

copies of a ll the documents filed by both parties in the trial c ourt and the or de r d e nying themot ion ." I n th is c a se , a lth ou g h th e pe tit ion e r i ns te a d f ile d a " no tic e of

app e a l" wi th n o atta c hme nts , th e no tic e wa s f ile d w ith in 1 0 d a y s o f the c ha lle ng e d o rd e r, state s th e c la im prese nted, and may

be ef fec tively treated as a n application for permission to appea l. See Graham v. State, 90 S.W .3d 687, 691 (Tenn. 2002) . Upon due c onsideration of the motion to reopen on its merits, however, the petitioner has f ailed to establish that he is entitled to relief . The petitioner’s re liance on B lakely avails him nothing. In State v. Gomez and L ondono, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD, 2005 Tenn. L EXI S 350, * 39, 41 (Tenn. Apr . 15, 2005), petitions for reh’ g filed, (Apr . 2005), the Te nnesseeSupreme Court most rec ently held that B lakely

did not establish a new rule of la w. The c ourt thus noted that the filing of a motion to reope n based on Blakely “would be a

futile ende avor.” I d. at *45, n. 16. Upon due c onsideration of the pleading s, the rec ord, and the applicable law, the c ourt c on c lud e s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y de nie d th e pe tition e r’ s mo tio n to re op e n h is p os tc on vic tio n p e tit ion . A c c or din g ly , th e state ’s mot ionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed in ac cordance w ith Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als.-3- ___________________________________ PRES I DING JUDGE GARY R. WADE