IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

THOMAS EUGENE GRAHAM v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

No. 215735 Stephen M. Bevil, Judge

No. E2004-02958-CCA-R3-PC - Filed May 26, 2005

The pro se petitioner, Thomas Eugene Graham, appeals from the trial court's order denying

the petitioner's motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. The states moves the court to affirm

the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of this court’s rules. The motion was properly

denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

GARY R. WADE, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT,JR., and

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J.J., joined. 

Thomas Eugene Graham, Tiptonville, Tennessee, Pro se. 

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Seth P. Kestner, Assistant Attorney General, for

the Appellee, State of Tennessee. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The defendant was convicted in 1991 in the Criminal Court for Hamilton County of

aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. He was sentenced as a

standard offender to concurrent, maximum Range I sentences of 25, 25, and 6 years, respectively. 

On appeal, his convictions were affirmed but his sentence for aggravated kidnapping was

modified to 12 years. See State v. Thomas Eugene Graham, No. 03C01-9112-CR-00391 (Tenn.

Crim. App. Jun. 22, 1993), app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 4, 1993). 

In November 2004, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. 

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117(c); see also Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § 10(b). He alleges that his

sentence was enhanced by the trial court beyond the statutory maximum in violation of the

holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The petitioner asserted

that Blakely established a new rule of law that is retrospectively applicable to his case and

entitles him to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117(a)(1). 
The order included in the record was entered on December 6, 2004, but is not file-stamped. Upon inquiry, the 1

trial court clerk has confirmed that the order was also filed on December 6, 2004. 

-2-

On December 6, 2004 , the trial court denied the motion "without prejudice." In its order, the 1

court stated, in relevant part:

Even assuming that Blakely establishes a new constitutional rule and that,

did the petitioner's sentences post-date Blakely, they would violate that rule,

however, the subject motion is premature, the Supreme Court having yet to make

Blakely applicable to cases on collateral review. See Simpson, 376 F.3d at 681

(dismissing without prejudice an application for leave to file a successive

collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that it was premature, the

Supreme Court having not yet having applied Blakely retrospectively or

announced that it has such application). The Court therefore decides that the

subject motion to reopen the petitioner's post-conviction petition should be denied

without prejudice. The Court observes that this disposition of the motion will

allow the petitioner to renew the motion should the Supreme Court apply Blakely

retrospectively or announce that it has retrospective application. 

On December 15, 2004, the petitioner filed a "notice of appeal" from the order of denial. The

trial court clerk transmitted a record which was filed in this court on January 10, 2005. 

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a brief, and the state responded with the instant Rule 20 motion for

summary affirmance. 

Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-30-117(c), upon the denial of a motion

to reopen a post-conviction proceeding, "the petitioner shall have ten (10) days to file an

application in the court of criminal appeals seeking permission to appeal. The application shall

be accompanied by copies of all the documents filed by both parties in the trial court and the

order denying the motion." In this case, although the petitioner instead filed a "notice of appeal"

with no attachments, the notice was filed within 10 days of the challenged order, states the claim

presented, and may be effectively treated as an application for permission to appeal. See Graham

v. State, 90 S.W.3d 687, 691 (Tenn. 2002). Upon due consideration of the motion to reopen on

its merits, however, the petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief. The

petitioner’s reliance on Blakely avails him nothing. In State v. Gomez and Londono, No.

M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 350, * 39, 41 (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2005), petitions for

reh’g filed, (Apr. 2005), the Tennessee Supreme Court most recently held that Blakely did not

establish a new rule of law. The court thus noted that the filing of a motion to reopen based on

Blakely “would be a futile endeavor.” Id. at *45, n. 16. 

Upon due consideration of the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the court

concludes that the trial court properly denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen his postconviction petition. Accordingly, the state’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is

affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 
-3-

___________________________________

 PRESIDING JUDGE GARY R. WADE