### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Apr il 8, 200 8
TON Y S HEF FAv. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. P -26146 W. F red Axley, Judge

No. W2007-01443-C CA-R 3-P C - July 2, 2008

The petitioner, Tony

Sheffa , appea ls the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-convic tion relief

. On appe a l, h e a ll e g e s th a t h is tr ia l c o un s e l w a s in e f f e c ti v e an d , th a t b e c a

u s e o f the ineffe ctiveness of counsel, his ple as wer e not know ingly and voluntarily enter ed. Upon our revie w of the re cord a

nd the par

ties’ brief

s, we c onclu d e that the post-conviction cour t did not have jurisdiction to hear the pe tition. Therefor e, we dismiss the appe al.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; A ppe al D ism iss e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I LLI A M S and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
R. A nd re w H utc his on

(o n a pp e a l) and

Pa ul Guib a o ( a t tr ia l) , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Tony Sheffa

. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Tom Hoove r, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound On Janu ary 29 , 2 00 1, the pe tit ion e r e nte re d guil ty ple a s to t wo counts of e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , tw o c ounts of e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ing , o ne c ount o f e va din g arr e st, one count of

resisting officia l detention, and one c ount of being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun. The pe titio n er re ce i v ed a total e ffe ctive sente nce of thirty y ear s in the Tennesse e Depa rtment of Corre ction.T he po s t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s order deny i ng t he pet i t i oner ’ s amended pet i t i on f or pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef 1 ind ic a te s tha t t h e p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to re o p e n “w a s g ra n te d a fter furth e r re v ie w .” T h e o rd e r g ra n ting the m o tio n is n o t i n the a p p e llate re c o rd

. -2- Subsequently , on Fe bruar y 8, 2002, the petit ioner filed a petiti on for post-c onviction relief. The State filed a

motion to di smiss t he petition, alleg ing that the petition wa s not timely filed. The post-conviction cour

t gr anted the State’ s motion and dismi ssed the petition. There afte r, on April 28, 2003, the pe titioner filed a motion asking the post-conviction cour t to r eopen his post-c onviction pe tition, ar g uing that “[t] he petition wa s timely filed b y P et i tioner. Ho we ve r, du e to a

n in sti tut ion a l lo c kd ow n, the Pe tit ion did no t r e a c h th e She lby

Cou nty Cle rk s unti l Fe bruar y 8, 2002.” The rec ord re flec ts that this motion was gra nted, although t he re cord doe s not ref lect the date the motion was g rante d. 1
On Octobe r 14, 2004, the pe titioner filed an amended pe tition for post-co nviction relief, a lle g ingfu

rt he r ins tanc e s of ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. Apo st- c onvic tio n h e ari ngwa s h e ld on Fe bruar

y 5, 2007, reg ardingthe amende d petition. At the p ost-conviction hea ring , the petitioner’s post-conviction counsel stated, without dispute, that the State had c onsented to the motion to reopen the post-conviction action. The post-conviction court procee ded to hear the pe titioner’s claims for post-conviction re lief. At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the post-conviction cour t found that the petitioner ha d failed to p r o v e th e c la im s a ll e g e d in h is ame n d e d

p o s t- c o n v ic ti o np e ti ti o n . O na p p e a l, th e p e ti ti o n er challeng es this ruling.
II. Ana lys is
Be fore we a ddress the me rits of t he petiti oner’ s claims, we must first addre ss a proc edura l challeng e ra ised by the S tate. For the first time on appea l, the State contends that the post-conviction court did not have jurisdiction to hear the petit ioner’s amended post-conviction petition. In its brief, the State “c oncede s that the post-conviction court erre d in dismi ssing the or igina l petition,” explaining that the orig inal petition was timely filed. Howe ver, the State contends that the petitioner did not appeal this err oneous dismissal. Instead, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen more than a y ear afte r the dismissal. The State argues that the petition doe s not f all into any

of the c ateg ories authorizing the r eopening of post -convic tion petitions; t hus, the post-conviction cour t was without jurisdiction to hear the pe tition. W e agree with the State.
Initially , we note that “[r] elief under [ the P ost-Conviction Procedur e Act] shall be g rante d when the c o n v ic ti o no r

s e n te n c e is v o id

o r v o id a b le b e c a u s e o f th e a b r id g me n t o f

an y r ight g uara nteed by the C onstitut ion of Tennessee or the C onstitut ion of the United States.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-103 ( 2003). Howe ver, to obtain re lief,

a pe rs on in c us tod

y un de r a se nte nc e of a cou rt of

thi s st a te mus t-3- petition for post-conviction re lief under this pa rt within one (1) year of the date of

the fi na l ac tio n o f t

he highe st s tate a

pp e llate c ourt

to which an a

ppeal is taken, or if no appea l is taken, within one (1) year of the date on which the judgme nt be came final, or consider ation of such petition shall be bar

red. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102(a ) (2003) ; see a lso W illiams v. S tate, 44 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 4 , 468 (Tenn. 2001). The statute emphasizes that time is of the ess en ce o f t h e ri ght to file a petition for post-conviction re lief or motion to reope n established by this chapter, a

nd the one- y ear

limit ations period is an e lement of the r ight t o fi l e s u ch an ac tion and is a condition upon its ex erc ise. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102(a)

. In the instant case , the petitioner pled guilty on J anuar

y 29, 2001. Gene rally , “a judg ment of convic tion entere d upon a guilty plea be comes fina l thirty day s after

ac ce p t ance of the ple a ag ree ment and imposition of sentence .” State v. Gr een, 106 S.W. 3 d 6 4 6 , 650 (Tenn. 2003) . On appea l, the State acknow ledg es t hat t he petiti oner’ s g uilty plea did not become final until Febr uary 2 8 , 2 0 0 1 ; t

h e r efor e, his orig in a l p e ti ti o n , w h ic hw a s f il e d o nF e b r u ar y 8 , 2 0 0 2 , w a s ti me ly

. We ag ree . Thus, the post-conviction cour t’s dismiss al of the or igina l petition was err oneous. Up on the e rr on e ou s d ism iss a l of the or ig ina l pe tit ion , th e pe tit ion e r s ho uld have fi le d, wi thi n thirty d ay s , a notice of

appea l. Specifica lly , we note that Rule 3(b) of the T ennesse e Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a criminal defe ndant may appea l to this court following“a f inal jud g me nt i na

. . . p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o np r o c e e d i n g . ” R u l e 4 ( a ) o f

th e T e n n e s s e e R

u l e s o f Ap p e lla te Procedur e instructs that “the notice of a ppeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with and rec eived by the c le rk of th e tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he date of

e ntr y of the jud g me nt a

pp e a le d f ro m; howeve r, in all criminal cases the ‘notice of appe al’ doc ument is not jurisdi ctional and the f iling of such docume nt may

be wa ived in the intere st of justice.” The pe titioner did not file a notice of appea l c ontesting the err oneous dismiss al of his origina l pe tit ion . Ins te a d, mor e tha n o ne y e ar a ft e r the dis mis sa l, the pe tit ion e r fi le d a mot ion to r e op e n h is or ig ina l pe tit ion . T he re c or d indi c a te s th a t, at so me po int , th is m oti on wa s g ra nte d. In c e rt a in limit ed cir cumstance s, a petitioner may file a motion to reope n a prior pe tition for post-conviction re lie f. Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d s e c tio n 4 0- 30 -1 17 (a ) ( 20 03 ) p ro vid e s th a t a pe tit ion e r m ay

fi le a motion to reopen the first post-conviction petition if:

(1) The claim in the motion is b ased upon a final rulingof an appellate court e stablishing a c onstitut ional rig ht that was not rec og nized a s exis ting at the time of trial, if retr ospective a pplication of that rig ht is required . . . ; or (2) The claim in the motion is base dupon new sc ientific evide nce establishing that such petitioner is ac tually innocent of the offe nse or offe nses for which the petitioner w as convic ted; or-4- (3) The claim asser

ted in the m otion seeks relief from a sente nce that was enhance d beca

use of a previous conviction and such c onviction in th e c a s e i n w h i c h th e c l a i m i s a s s e rt e d w a s n o t a g u i l ty ple a wi th an a g re e d se nte nc e , a

nd the pr e vio us c onvic tio n h a s su bs e qu e ntl y been he ld to be invalid . . . ; and (4 ) It a pp e ars that th e fact s un de rl yingthe c la im, if tr ue , w ou ld e sta bli shby c le ar a nd c onvin c inge vid e nc e that th e pe tition e r i s entitled to have the c onviction set aside or the sentenc e re duced. As th e S t at e co ntends, the petitioner’ s motion t o reope n did not fall into any of these limited c ir c ums tanc e s. Th e re fo re , th e po st- c onvic tio n c ourt e rr on e ou sly

g ra nte d the pe tit ion e r’ s mot ion to reope n. As we note d ear lier, the petitioner did not file a notice of appe al contestingthe dismissal of his or ig ina l pe tit ion . T he re fo re , thir ty da y s af te r the or de r d ism iss ingthe pe tit ion wa s f ile d, the po stconviction cour

t’s judgme nt becam e final. Thus, no “amende d” petition could be f iled on a completed a ction. Fur

ther, the “ amende d” petit i o n cannot be treated as a new post-c onviction petition. Gener all y , a petitioner ma y file only one petition for post-c onviction relief. See Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 4 0- 30 -1 02 (c ). Ac c or din g ly , th e po st- c onvic tio n c ourt ha d n o ju

ri sd icti on to ad dr e ss the complaints in the petitioner’s a mended pe tition.
III. Conclusi on Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e conc lude we must dismiss the petitioner’s appe al.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE